Court Opinion

ID: 2736330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-09-24 07:09:36.4176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:55.342054
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________

                             NO. 09-14-00067-CR
                            ____________________

                DAPHNE OCTAVIA SPURLOCK, Appellant

                                       V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_________________________________        ______________________

                On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                      Montgomery County, Texas
                    Trial Cause No. 13-12-13492 CR
____________________________________________                      ____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury convicted Daphne Octavia Spurlock of injury to a child and

sentenced Spurlock to forty years in prison. Spurlock’s appellate counsel filed a

brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes

Spurlock’s appeal is frivolous. 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 Spurlock to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from

Spurlock. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have

                                       1
independently examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree

that no arguable issues support an appeal. We find it unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

      AFFIRMED.

                                            ________________________________
                                                    STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                        Chief Justice

Submitted on September 11, 2014
Opinion Delivered September 24, 2014
Do Not Publish

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

      1
       Spurlock may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                        2