Court Opinion

ID: 9380094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 07:09:23.528419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:22.584561
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              ________________
                               NO. 09-22-00185-CR
                              ________________

                      OWEN TATE EMMETT, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 19-11-15408-CR
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant Owen Emmett pleaded guilty

to injury to a child, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(1).

The plea agreement provided for a maximum of 45 years imprisonment, allowed the

trial court to assess Appellant’s punishment, and permitted Appellant to appeal his

sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 40 years in the

                                         1
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal

followed.

      Emmett’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 4, 2022,

we notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the

deadline for doing so, but we received no response from Appellant. We have

reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no

arguable issues support the appeal. 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.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                           ________________________________
                                                     JAY WRIGHT
                                                         Justice

Submitted on January 27, 2023
Opinion Delivered March 15, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

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