Mitchell Dale Fortin v. the State of Texas

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