Benjamin Garrett v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-22-00264-CR __________________ BENJAMIN GARRETT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 20-35627 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Benjamin Garrett appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. We affirm. In 2020, Garrett was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a firearm), a second degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02. Garrett pleaded “not guilty,” he was tried by a jury in July 2022, and the jury found Garrett guilty and found that he had used a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. 1 During the punishment phase of trial, the State provided evidence of a prior felony conviction for manslaughter, and Garrett pleaded “true” to the enhancement. The jury assessed punishment at twenty-five years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Garrett’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief wherein the attorney stated that he had reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record 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 Garrett to file a pro se brief. On January 19, 2023, Garrett’s appellate attorney filed a Motion to Temporarily Abate Court’s Decision requesting this Court to hold its decision for at least forty-five days because counsel had not heard from Garrett, and counsel requested additional time to determine whether there were any “relevant issues and/or raise any point of error.” On January 20, 2023, Garrett filed a pro se Motion for an Extension of Time for ninety days. We denied the motion to abate and granted Garrett an extension until February 22, 2023, to file a pro se brief or response. On March 10, 2023, Appellant filed a pro se Motion for Substitution of Counsel. In the Motion, Appellant requested new appointed counsel because he “feels that [his current appointed appellate counsel] cannot/or/will not render the effective assistance of counsel[.]” He also refers to other pending charges and 2 another appointed counsel and requests new appointed counsel “for the purposes of d[i]sposing of the additional charges.” 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. Upon receiving an Anders brief, we 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 independently reviewed and conducted a full examination of the entire appellate record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28. We also conclude that Appellant’s pro se letter does not state a legal issue or complaint, nor does it provide any legal authority or analysis as required by the rules for appellate briefs. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Garrett’s 3 appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on March 29, 2023 Opinion Delivered April 5, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. Garrett may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 1 4
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.
