Stacy Lazard Rogers v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00356-CR
__________________

STACY LAZARD ROGERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR21-0013
_______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Stacy Lazard Rogers appeals his conviction for assault family violence with

previous conviction, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §

22.01(b)(2)(A). After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney

to represent Rogers in his appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to

Rogers by filing an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

In the brief, Rogers’s attorney represents there are no arguable reversible

errors to be addressed in Rogers’s appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

1
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains a professional

evaluation of the record. In the brief, Rogers’s attorney explains why, under the

record in Rogers’s case, no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment.

Id. Rogers’s attorney also represented that he sent Rogers a copy of the brief and the

record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified

Rogers, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or

before October 6, 2023. Rogers responded that he would file a pro se brief; however,

Rogers never filed a brief.

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. Penson v.

Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). 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. 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.”). Thus, it follows the appeal is frivolous. Id. at

826. For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney

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

1991).

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 1

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on June 26, 2024
Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024
Do Not Publish

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

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