Court Opinion

ID: 4423624
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-08-07 22:52:17.147603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:06.030110
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-18-00190-CR
                              __________________

                  DAVID DEWAYNE GARRETT, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 128th District Court
                       Orange County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. A170319-R
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found appellant David Dewayne Garrett 1 guilty of burglary of a

habitation and assessed punishment as a previous felony offender at fifty-five years

of imprisonment and a $7500 fine. Garrett’s appellate counsel filed a brief that

presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is

      1
      Although not an arguable issue, we note that appellant’s middle name is
misspelled in the indictment and the trial court’s judgment.
                                           1
frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

      On November 19, 2018, we granted an extension of time for Garrett to file a

pro se brief. Garrett 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 an Anders brief or a

pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Rather, an appellate court may determine: (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 reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. 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. 2

      AFFIRMED.

                                              ______________________________
                                                     STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                         Chief Justice

      2
        Garrett may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                        2
Submitted on June 6, 2019
Opinion Delivered August 7, 2019
Do Not Publish

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

                                       3