Court Opinion

ID: 4506997
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-02-12 23:13:10.69008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:35.365867
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                               __________________

                               NO. 09-19-00201-CR
                               __________________

                  LEON RANDOLPH FOOTS JR., Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 435th District Court
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 19-06-07664-CR
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A grand jury indicted Appellant Leon Randolph Foots Jr. (“Appellant” or

“Foots”) for continuous sexual abuse of a child, with an enhancement allegation for

a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.02(b). Appellant pleaded

“not guilty,” and a jury found him guilty of the lesser-included offense of aggravated

sexual assault of a child. See id. § 22.021(a)(1)(B); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. arts.

37.08, 37.09. Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraph, and the jury
                                          1
assessed punishment at fifty years of confinement, and Appellant filed a notice of

appeal.

      On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, he concluded that the appeal lacks merit and that there are no

arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High

v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time

for Foots to file a pro se brief and Foots filed no response.

      Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed

the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably

support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it

considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error

but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

                                           2
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 21, 2020
Opinion Delivered February 12, 2020
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

      1
         Foots may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         3