Court Opinion

ID: 4298751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-07-27 23:53:26.583945+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:41:39.616774
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                            ____________________

                             NO. 09-18-00041-CR
                            ____________________

                DOUGLAS EDWARD GOSBY JR., Appellant

                                       V.

                   THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 128th District Court
                        Orange County, Texas
                      Trial Cause No. A170334-R
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Douglas Edward Gosby Jr. was indicted for sexual assault of a

child, a second-degree felony. Gosby waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded

guilty to sexual assault of a child in an open plea. After conducting a sentencing

hearing, the trial court sentenced Gosby to twelve years of confinement and also

assessed a $1000 fine.

      Gosby’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

                                        1
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). On April 30, 2018, we granted an extension of time for Gosby to file a pro se

brief, and Gosby filed a pro se response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held

that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or a pro se

response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather,

an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue

an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;]”

or (2) “that 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 reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. 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.
                                              ______________________________
                                                     STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                         Chief Justice
Submitted on June 26, 2018
Opinion Delivered July 25, 2018
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
      1
        Gosby may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                          2