Tonny Lynn Mills v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-23-00143-CR
________________

TONNY LYNN MILLS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 21-07-09788-CR
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Appellant Tonny Lynn Mills of the first-degree felony

offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b),

(h)1. Mills elected to have the jury assess punishment, and the jury sentenced him to

fifty years of confinement.

1
Appellant was subject to a minimum sentence, upon conviction, to 25 years
in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice pursuant to paragraph (h) of the statute.
1
Mills’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On November 9, 2023, we notified Mills that he could file a pro

se brief and the deadline for doing so. Mills has not filed a response. The Court of

Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in

an Anders brief or pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is

wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and

finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “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.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s

judgment.2

2
Mills may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2
AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT
Justice

Submitted on July 24, 2024
Opinion Delivered August 7, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

3