William Mitchell Keen v. the State of Texas
Docket 09-25-00143-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 09-25-00143-CR
Appeal from a criminal conviction and sentence following a jury guilty verdict for indecency with a child in the 9th District Court, Montgomery County, Texas
Summary
The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed William Mitchell Keen’s conviction and nine-year sentence for indecency with a child. Keen’s court-appointed appellate lawyer filed an Anders brief saying there were no arguable grounds for reversal, and Keen filed a pro se brief. The appeals court conducted a full review of the record, the Anders brief, and the pro se brief, found no reversible error or arguable grounds for appeal, and declined to appoint new counsel for further briefing. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
Issues Decided
- Whether the record contained any arguable grounds for reversal of Keen’s conviction or sentence.
- Whether appointment of new appellate counsel was required after receipt of an Anders brief and a pro se brief.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied the Anders/Penson framework requiring a full review of the record when appellate counsel files an Anders brief asserting no arguable grounds for appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel’s Anders brief, and Keen’s pro se brief, the court found no reversible error or arguable issues that would justify further briefing. Because no arguable grounds were identified, the court concluded appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal was unnecessary and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- Penson v. Ohio488 U.S. 75 (1988)
- Bledsoe v. State178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
Parties
- Appellant
- William Mitchell Keen
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Leanne Johnson, Justice
Key Dates
- Opinion Delivered
- 2026-04-22
- Opinion Submitted
- 2026-04-15
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider petition for discretionary review
If Keen wishes to continue challenge, he should consult counsel about filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals before applicable deadlines.
- 2
Consult defense counsel about post-conviction options
Keen should discuss potential post-conviction relief avenues such as habeas corpus petitions or other remedies with an attorney to evaluate grounds and timing.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed Keen’s conviction and nine-year sentence after reviewing the record and finding no arguable grounds for reversal.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- William Mitchell Keen, who remains convicted and sentenced, and the State of Texas as the prevailing party.
- What does 'Anders brief' mean and how did it affect the case?
- An Anders brief is filed by appointed counsel when counsel believes an appeal is frivolous; it triggers a full court review of the record, which here found no reversible error.
- Can Keen seek further review?
- Yes. Keen may file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-25-00143-CR
__________________
WILLIAM MITCHELL KEEN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 24-03-04315-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A grand jury indicted Appellant William Mitchell Keen (“Appellant” or
“Keen”) for indecency with a child, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 21.11(a)(2)(A), (d). Keen pleaded “not guilty” to the charge and the jury found
Keen guilty. After hearing evidence on punishment, the jury assessed punishment at
nine years of confinement. Keen timely filed a notice of appeal.
On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered appellate attorney filed a brief stating
that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record
1
and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978). We granted an extension of time for Keen to file a pro se brief, and Keen filed
a pro se brief.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives
an Anders brief and also receives a pro se brief, the 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. (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). We do not address
the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se brief when we have
determined there are no arguable grounds for review. Id. at 827.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, this 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, counsel’s brief, and Keen’s pro se brief, and we have found nothing that
would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-28 (“Due to the
nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues
2
raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the
court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”).
Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief
the appeal. Cf. Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1
AFFIRMED.
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on April 15, 2026
Opinion Delivered April 22, 2026
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
1
Keen may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3