Court Opinion

ID: 4363282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-01-31 00:48:38.553565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:02.814662
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                             ____________________

                              NO. 09-17-00387-CR
                             ____________________

                    DUSTIN DANIEL HARDING, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 359th District Court
                         Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 16-04-04189-CR
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Dustin Daniel Harding appeals his conviction of continuous sexual abuse of a

child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b) (West Supp. 2018).1 A jury found

Harding guilty and sentenced him to 75 years confinement. The attorney appointed

to represent Harding in his appeal filed an Anders brief, which asserted that the

attorney carefully reviewed the record and the law and found no meritorious claims

   1
     We cite the current version of the statute as subsequent amendments do not
affect our disposition.
                                         1
on which he could argue Harding’s conviction should be reversed. After receiving

Harding’s Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Harding to file a

pro se response. Harding requested an extension to file a pro se brief, and we granted

his request. However, Harding did not file a brief with the court.

       We have reviewed the record and agree with Harding’s counsel that no

arguable issues exist to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978);

Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Therefore, it is not

necessary that we appoint new counsel to rebrief Harding’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals

to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for

the appeal). Given our conclusion that no arguable grounds exist to support

Harding’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2

       AFFIRMED.

                                                    _________________________
                                                         CHARLES KREGER
                                                              Justice

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

                                          2
Submitted on December 4, 2018
Opinion Delivered January 30, 2019
Do Not Publish

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

                                       3