James Dean Lucas v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00037-CR
________________

JAMES DEAN LUCAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F21-38568
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a trial to the bench, Appellant James Dean Lucas was convicted of

the second-degree felony offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration

requirements. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 62.102. Lucas elected to have the

trial court assess punishment, and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen years of

confinement.

1
Lucas’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 July 29, 2024, after Lucas’s counsel filed his brief, we granted

an extension of time for Lucas to file a pro se brief. Lucas did not file a pro se brief

in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly

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

no reversible error[;] [o]r, it 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.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of

the record 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 no reversible error, and we conclude

the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we

find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the

2
appeal. 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 3, 2025
Opinion Delivered February 26, 2025
Do Not Publish

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

1Lucas may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3