# Ronnell Lamont Brown v. the State of Texas

> Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) · November 5, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10738976

## Case

- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- **Decided:** November 5, 2024
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10738976

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”

## Opinion text

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00412-CR

Ronnell Lamont Brown, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY
NO. 81002, THE HONORABLE WADE NICHOLAS FAULKNER, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ronnell Lamont Brown entered an open plea of guilty to unlawful possession of a

firearm by a felon. See Tex. Penal Code § 46.04. The trial court assessed punishment at ten years

in prison. At the same time, Brown entered an open plea of guilty to aggravated assault with a

deadly weapon, and true to a felony enhancement. See id. §§ 12.42, 22.02. The trial court assessed

punishment at 47 years in prison and ordered $39,504.79 in restitution. Brown appeals both

convictions. This appeal concerns only the possession of a firearm by a felon conviction.

Brown’s court-appointed attorney on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw

supported by an Anders brief contending that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Brown’s court-appointed attorney’s brief meets the

requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating

that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See id.; Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81-82 (1988) (explaining that

Anders briefs serve purpose of “assisting the court in determining both that counsel in fact

conducted the required detailed review of the case and that the appeal is . . . frivolous”). Brown’s

counsel has represented to the Court that she provided copies of the motion and brief to Brown;

advised Brown of his right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue

discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court. She also provided to

Brown a Motion for Pro Se Access to the Appellate Record lacking only Brown’s signature and

the date and provided the mailing address for this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Brown filed that motion and received a copy of the Appellate

Record but has not filed a pro se brief or a motion for extension of time to file a brief.

We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might

arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766. We agree

with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw

and affirm the trial court’s order.

__________________________________________
Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Triana, and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: November 5, 2024

Do Not Publish

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10738976. Public record. Not legal advice.