Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kyle Stephan Antoine, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant Kyle Stephan Antoine guilty of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit sexual assault and assessed punishment at ninety-nine years imprisonment with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Institutional Division. Antoine filed a timely notice of appeal.
Antoine's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1978). Counsel's brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided Antoine with a copy of this brief. We granted an extension of time for Antoine to file a pro se brief. Antoine filed a pro se brief raising a number of issues on appeal.
The appellate court 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). In these circumstances, we “may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine 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. (citations omitted).
We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree with Antoine's appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Antoine's appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App.1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Antoine may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex.R.App. P. 68.
CHARLES KREGER, Justice
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: NO. 09–14–00299–CR
Decided: May 27, 2015
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)