Court of Appeals of Texas, 2021

Sophia Perez Heath v. State

Sophia Perez Heath v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided March 3, 2021
Sophia Perez Heath v. State

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________

NO. 09-20-00030-CR __________________

SOPHIA PEREZ HEATH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 9th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 19-01-00864-CR __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, in which the State agreed to cap her punishment at twenty years of confinement, appellant Sophia Perez Heath pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping. After conducting an evidentiary sentencing hearing, the trial judge found Heath guilty and imposed a sentence of twenty years of confinement.

Heath’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents 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). Heath filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (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 determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. 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.1

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on February 3, 2021

Opinion Delivered March 3, 2021

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1 Heath may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.