In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00353-CR __________________ JAHKENN SAYVION BUCHANAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 292nd District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Cause No. F-1940702-V __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Jahkenn Sayvion Buchanan appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery, a first-degree felony.1 After Buchanan filed the notice, the attorney the trial court appointed to represent Buchanan in his appeal submitted an Anders brief. 2 In the

See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03. We note that the Texas Supreme Court transferred the appeal to the Ninth Court of Appeals pursuant to its docket- equalization plan.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). brief, Buchanan’s attorney argues no arguable grounds exist to support filing a merits-based brief in Buchanan’s appeal. In the brief, Buchanan’s attorney provided the Court with his professional evaluation of the record, and he explains why no arguable issues exist to support any arguments asserting the judgment the trial court rendered should be reversed. In the brief, Buchanan’s attorney has certified that he sent Buchanan a copy of the brief, the record, and he explained to Buchanan that Buchanan could file his own pro se response in this Court to explain why he thought the judgment the trial court signed in his case should be reversed. That said, Buchanan did not file a pro se response.

The record before us shows that in May 2019, a Dallas County grand jury indicted Buchanan for aggravated robbery. The indictment states that Buchanan committed the aggravated robbery in September 2018. In August 2019, Buchanan signed a judicial confession. In the judicial confession, Buchanan admitted that, based on the allegation in his indictment, he committed the aggravated robbery as was alleged. After the trial court heard evidence that was relevant to the circumstances surrounding Buchanan’s case and heard evidence relevant to Buchanan’s punishment, the trial court sentenced Buchanan to prison for a term of fifteen years.

After Buchanan appealed, Buchanan’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief.

The brief provides the Court with the attorney’s professional evaluation of the record. The brief concludes that Buchanan’s appeal is frivolous. 3 After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Buchanan’s attorney, we agree that no arguable issues exist in the appeal to support the filing of a merits-based brief. We further conclude the appeal is frivolous. Consequently, we need not appoint another attorney to re-brief the appeal.4 For these reasons, the judgment in Trial Court Cause Number F-1940702-V is AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on July 30, 2020 Opinion Delivered February 10, 2021 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Buchanan may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.

See Tex. R. App. P. 68.