Rony Sanchez v. The State of Texas Appeal from 75th District Court of Liberty County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-22-00318-CR __________________ RONY SANCHEZ, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR35036 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Rony Sanchez appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery, a firstdegree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Sanchez in the appeal. The attorney discharged his responsibilities to Sanchez by filing an Anders brief. 2 1See 2See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). 1 In the brief, Sanchez’s attorney represents there are no arguable reversible errors to be addressed in Sanchez’s appeal.3 The brief contains a professional evaluation of the record, and Sanchez’s attorney explains why under the record in Sanchez’s case no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. 4 Sanchez’s attorney also represents that he sent Sanchez a copy of the brief and the record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Sanchez, by letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the Court on or before February 27, 2023. Sanchez, however, failed to respond. 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 his appeal.5 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree no arguable grounds 3See 4Id. 744). id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 5Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 2 exist to support Sanchez’s appeal. 6 It follows the appeal is frivolous. 7 For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal.8 The trial court’s judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on July 26, 2023 Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 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.”). 7Id. at 826. 8See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Sanchez may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 6See 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.
