Henry Davis III v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00232-CR
__________________

HENRY DAVIS III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR35261
_______________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Henry Davis III appeals his conviction for murder, a first-degree felony. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 19.02(c). After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court

appointed an attorney to represent Davis in his appeal. The attorney discharged his

responsibilities to Davis by filing an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738, 744 (1967).

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

to be addressed in Davis’s appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.

1
App. 1978). The brief the attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the

record. In the brief, Davis’s attorney explains why, under the record in Davis’s case,

no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. Id. Davis’s attorney

also represented that he sent Davis a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief

was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Davis, by letter, that he

could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before January 30, 2024.

Davis did not file a response. 1

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

826-27. For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another

1Davis requested, and received, copies of the clerk’s record and reporter’s

record; however, Davis did not file a response.
2
attorney 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. 2

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on June 27, 2024
Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024
Do Not Publish

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

2Davis may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3