Ernest Joe Bilnoski v. The State of Texas Appeal from 221st District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-13-00408-CR ________________ ERNEST JOE BILNOSKI, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-07-07790 CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant Ernest Joe Bilnoski guilty of arson as a habitual felony offender and assessed punishment at forty-five years of imprisonment. Bilnoski s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Bilnoski filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error ; or (2) 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. We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on August 22, 2014 Opinion Delivered September 17, 2014 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 1 Bilnoski may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
