Warren DeBlanc III 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. 09-22-00344-CR __________________ WARREN DEBLANC III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22DC-CR-00055 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A grand jury indicted Appellant Warren DeBlanc III (“Appellant” or “DeBlanc”) for burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit the offense of theft, with an enhancement allegation for a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42, 30.02(c)(2). In the jury’s presence, DeBlanc pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit the offense of theft, the jury then found DeBlanc guilty of the offense as charged in the indictment, and the trial court accepted the verdict. During the punishment phase, DeBlanc pleaded 1 “true” to the enhancement, the jury found the enhancement to be true, the jury assessed punishment at sixty-five years of confinement, and the trial court accepted the verdict and sentenced DeBlanc in accordance with the verdict. DeBlanc filed a notice of appeal. On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he has diligently reviewed the record and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney also filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted extensions of time for DeBlanc to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from DeBlanc. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings 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 reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an 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.”) Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new 2 counsel to re-brief the 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 April 27, 2023 Opinion Delivered May 10, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ. DeBlanc may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3 1
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.
