In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-20-00220-CR
__________________
ANGELA CASSIDY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 19-07-09172-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Angela Cassidy appeals her conviction for injuring a child by
omission, a first-degree felony. 1 After filing the notice of appeal, the trial
court appointed an attorney to represent Cassidy in her appeal. The
attorney discharged his responsibilities to Cassidy filing an Anders
1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(b)(1).
1
brief. 2 In the brief, Cassidy’s attorney represents there are no arguable
reversible errors to be addressed in Cassidy’s appeal. 3 The brief the
attorney filed contains a professional evaluation of the record. In the
brief, Cassidy’s attorney explains why, under the record in Cassidy’s case,
no arguable issues exist to reverse the trial court’s judgment. 4 Cassidy’s
attorney also represented that he sent Cassidy a copy of the brief and the
record. When the brief was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals
notified Cassidy, by letter, that she could file a pro se brief or response
with the Court on or before May 3, 2021. Cassidy, however, did not
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 the appeal. 5 After reviewing the clerk’s record, the
reporter’s record, and the attorney’s brief, we agree there are no arguable
grounds to support the appeal. Thus, it follows that the appeal is
2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
3See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
4Id.
5Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at
744).
2
frivolous. 6 For that reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint
another attorney to re-brief the appeal. 7
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on June 27, 2022
Opinion Delivered August 10, 2022
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
6See 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.”).
7See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Cassidy may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3