William Mitchell Keen v. State of Texas — Indecency with Child, Nine-Year Sentence, Affirmed
Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, Ninth District at Beaumont affirmed the conviction and nine-year sentence of William Mitchell Keen for indecency with a child, a third-degree felony under Texas Penal Code § 21.11. Keen was tried before a jury that found him guilty and assessed punishment at nine years of confinement. On appeal, Keen filed a pro se brief after his court-appointed appellate attorney filed an Anders brief identifying no arguable grounds for reversal. The appellate court conducted a full examination of the record and found no reversible error.
“Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous.”
About this source
The Texas Courts of Appeals are intermediate appellate courts that hear every appeal from Texas district and county courts before cases reach the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals. Together they publish around 290 opinions a month across civil, criminal, family, probate, and administrative cases. Texas's economy and legal volume mean the courts generate significant precedent on energy, oil and gas, commercial real estate, employment, and family law that affects multistate clients. GovPing tracks every published opinion via CourtListener's mirror, with case name, parties, court division, and outcome. Watch this if you litigate in Texas, advise on energy or land disputes, or track how Texas courts treat federal questions in commercial cases.
What changed
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in its entirety, upholding both the guilty verdict and the nine-year sentence assessed by the jury. The court determined the appeal was wholly frivolous after reviewing the Anders brief, the appellant's pro se brief, and the complete trial record, finding nothing that would arguably support an appeal. The court declined to appoint new counsel to re-brief the issues. Keen may seek further review by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Archived snapshot
Apr 24, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
April 22, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
William Mitchell Keen v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 09-25-00143-CR
- Nature of Suit: Indecency with a Child
Disposition: Affirmed
Disposition
Affirmed
Lead Opinion
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
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for Texas Court of Appeals
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from TX Courts.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.