Court Opinion

ID: 3073440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:55:03.976492+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:51.637228
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________
                              NO. 09-13-00071-CR
                            ____________________

                 TIMOTHY QUINTEN BALDWIN, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________           ______________

                    On Appeal from the 260th District Court
                           Orange County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. D120021-R
________________________________________________________           _____________

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found Timothy Quinten Baldwin guilty of the offense of aggravated

sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen (enhanced by a prior felony

conviction), and assessed punishment at fifty years in prison. Baldwin’s appellate

counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record

and concludes that the case presents no arguable grounds to be advanced on

appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Baldwin filed a

pro se brief in response.
                                        1
      The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits

of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine

that: (1) “the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has

reviewed the record and finds no reversible error”; or (2) “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 have determined that no arguable issues support Baldwin’s appeal. We

have independently examined the clerk’s and reporter’s records, 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.

                                                    _________________________
                                                       LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                              Justice

Submitted on January 3, 2014
Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

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