Court Opinion

ID: 9404524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 07:11:07.280082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:14.999523
License: Public Domain

In The

                                  Court of Appeals

                     Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                                ________________
                                NO. 09-22-00153-CR
                                ________________

                       BILLY GENE SHOOK III, Appellant

                                           V.

                        THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                     On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
                            Liberty County, Texas
                           Trial Cause No. CR34455
________________________________________________________________________

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Billy Gene Shook III was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of

a child, a first degree felony, and sentenced to life in the Institutional Division of the

Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b). We

affirm.

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

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

                                            1
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). Shook was notified

of his right to file a pro se brief, 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 an 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 May 2, 2023
Opinion Delivered June 21, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.

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