Christopher Shane Bledsoe v. The State of Texas Appeal from 411th District Court of Polk County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-23-00207-CR __________________ CHRISTOPHER SHANE BLEDSOE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 411th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR22-0506 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Christopher Shane Bledsoe appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.42(b); 30.02(a)(3), (c)(2). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. A grand jury indicted Bledsoe for burglary of a habitation, a second-degree felony. See id. § 30.02(a)(1). The indictment was subsequently amended on motion of the State to reflect the elements of the offense as required by section 30.02(a)(3). See id. § 30.02(a)(3). The State filed a Notice of Enhancement, alleging Bledsoe had 1 two previous felony convictions. Bledsoe pleaded “[n]ot guilty[]” to the offense, and a jury found Bledsoe guilty. During the punishment phase of trial, Bledsoe pleaded “true” to the two enhancement allegations. After hearing evidence and Bledsoe’s stipulations to his prior convictions, the trial court sentenced Bledsoe to punishment at twenty-five years of imprisonment. On appeal, Bledsoe’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the record and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, he concluded that the appeal lacks merit and that 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). On October 18, 2023, we granted an extension of time for Bledsoe to file a pro se brief, and Bledsoe filed no response. 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 appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on January 26, 2024 Opinion Delivered January 31, 2024 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ. Bledsoe may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.
