Court Opinion

ID: 6334065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-04-22 07:13:23.146273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:33.802272
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ________________
                               NO. 09-21-00059-CR
                               ________________

                    JAMES RAY DUNCANSON, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 52nd District Court
                           Coryell County , Texas
                          Trial Cause No. 19-25491
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In an open plea, appellant James Ray Duncanson pleaded guilty to prostitution

solicitation of a person under 18 years old. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.02(c-1). After

conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court assessed Duncanson’s punishment

at five years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional

Division.1

      1
        This case was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in
Waco, Texas, pursuant to a docket equalization order. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §
73.001.
                                          1
      Duncanson’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On September 7, 2021, we granted an extension of time for

Duncanson to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Duncanson.

      We 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.2

      AFFIRMED.

                                            ________________________________
                                                    CHARLES KREGER
                                                          Justice

Submitted on February 23, 2022
Opinion Delivered April 20, 2022
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

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