Casey Michael Rhynes v. The State of Texas Appeal from 359th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-17-00440-CR NO. 09-17-00441-CR NO. 09-17-00442-CR NO. 09-17-00443-CR ________________ CASEY MICHAEL RHYNES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15-05-05331-CR, Counts 1-4 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In an open plea, Casey Michael Rhynes pleaded guilty as a habitual offender to aggravated assault against a public servant, two charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and one charge of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. The trial court found that the evidence substantiated Rhynes’s guilt and sentenced Rhynes to fifty years of confinement in the aggravated assault of a public servant 1 case, fifty years of confinement in each of the aggravated assault cases, and fifty years of confinement in the evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle case. The trial judge ordered that the sentences would run concurrently. Rhynes’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and concludes that the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State; 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Rhynes 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 determined that these appeals are wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk’s records and the reporter’s records, and we agree that no arguable issues support the appeals. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 2 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on September 12, 2018 Opinion Delivered September 26, 2018 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 1 Rhynes may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3
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.
