Joshua Lee Trevino v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00237-CR
NO. 09-24-00238-CR
NO. 09-24-00239-CR
________________

JOSHUA LEE TREVINO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 27824, 27825, and 28631
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Joshua Lee Trevino for three counts of assault

of a public servant. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a), (b)(1). Trevino waived his

right to a jury trial and pled guilty to all three offenses. Although the offenses

charged are third-degree felonies, Trevino’s prior felony convictions enhance his

punishment to second-degree felonies, with a penalty range of two to twenty years.

1
See id.; see also id. § 12.42(a). The trial court sentenced Trevino to serve nine years

of confinement on two charges concurrently. On his third charge, the trial court

sentenced Trevino to serve nine years of confinement and ordered that it will run

consecutively. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.08(a). Trevino received credit

for time served.

Trevino’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concluding that the appeal is frivolous; he

also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 20,

2025, after Trevino’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for

Trevino to file a pro se brief. Trevino did not file a pro se brief in response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of

the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record, and counsel’s brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude

the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

2
counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1

AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON
Chief Justice

Submitted on July 14, 2025
Opinion Delivered August 20, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1Trevino may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3