William Mitchell Keen v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00143-CR
__________________

WILLIAM MITCHELL KEEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24-03-04315-CR
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant William Mitchell Keen (“Appellant” or

“Keen”) for indecency with a child, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.

§ 21.11(a)(2)(A), (d). Keen pleaded “not guilty” to the charge and the jury found

Keen guilty. After hearing evidence on punishment, the jury assessed punishment at

nine years of confinement. Keen timely filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered appellate attorney filed a brief stating

that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record

1
and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). We granted an extension of time for Keen to file a pro se brief, and Keen filed

a pro se brief.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief and also receives a pro se brief, the appellate court has two choices.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may

determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it

has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that

arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new

counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). We do not address

the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief when we have

determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this 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, counsel’s brief, and Keen’s pro se brief, and we have found nothing that

would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the

nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues

2
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.”).

Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief

the appeal. Cf. Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice

Submitted on April 15, 2026
Opinion Delivered April 22, 2026
Do Not Publish

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

1
Keen may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3