Mitchell Dale Fortin v. The State of Texas Appeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-23-00146-CR NO. 09-23-00147-CR __________________ MITCHELL DALE FORTIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 21-06-08504-CR, 21-06-08514-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Appellant Mitchell Dale Fortin guilty of the first-degree felony offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and the second-degree felony offense of indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.02(b), (h); 21.11(a)(1), (d). The jury assessed Fortin’s punishment at thirty-five years of imprisonment for the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and at twenty 1 years of imprisonment for the offense of indecency with a child. The trial court granted the State’s Motion to Cumulate Sentence and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, Fortin’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs that present counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and concludes 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). On November 17, 2023, we granted an extension of time for Fortin to file pro se briefs, and Fortin filed no responses. Upon receiving the Anders briefs, this Court must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeals are wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire records and counsel’s briefs, and we have found nothing that would arguably support the appeals. 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 appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1 AFFIRMED. W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on February 26, 2024 Opinion Delivered February 28, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ. 1Fortin may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition of discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.
