Clifford Byron Stephenson v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00411-CR
__________________

CLIFFORD BYRON STEPHENSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 260th District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. D230171-R
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Clifford Byron Stephenson appeals his conviction for criminal mischief, a first-

degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney

to represent Stephenson on his appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities

to Stephenson by filing an Anders brief. 2

1
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 28.03(B)(7).
2
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
1
In the brief, Stephenson’s attorney represents that there are no arguable

reversible errors to be addressed in Stephenson’s appeal.3 The brief the attorney filed

contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Stephenson’s attorney

explains why, under the record in Stephenson’s case, no arguable issues exist to

reverse the trial court’s judgment.4 Stephenson’s attorney also represents that he sent

Stephenson a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk

of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Stephenson, by letter, that he could file a pro

se brief or response with the Court on or before September 2, 2025. Stephenson,

however, failed to respond.

When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to independently

examine the record and determine whether the attorney assigned to represent the

defendant has a non-frivolous argument that would support the appeal. 5 After

reviewing the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree

there are no arguable grounds to support the appeal. 6 Thus, it follows the appeal is

3
See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
4
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744-45.
5
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744).
6
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due
to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the
issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found
none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 47.1.”).
2
frivolous. 7 For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another

attorney to re-brief the appeal. 8, 9

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on November 3, 2025
Opinion Delivered November 12, 2025
Do Not Publish

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

7
Id. at 826.
8
See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
9
Stephenson may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3