Court Opinion

ID: 9375170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-25 07:10:01.281586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.449577
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed February 23, 2023

                                        In The

        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                      ___________

                                  No. 11-22-00140-CR
                                      ___________

            JOHN BRANDON GLEN HUGGINS, Appellant
                                          V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                     On Appeal from the 70th District Court
                              Ector County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. A-21-1284-CR

                     MEMORANDUM OPINION
      John Brandon Glen Huggins, Appellant, waived his right to a jury and entered
an open plea of guilty to three counts of possession of child pornography. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a), (d) (West 2016).           The trial court admonished
Appellant and then, in a unified hearing, heard evidence in support of Appellant’s
pleas of guilty and evidence related to punishment. At the end of the hearing, the
trial court found Appellant guilty of three counts of possession of child pornography
and assessed Appellant’s punishment for each count at imprisonment for a term of
ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
The trial court also ordered that the sentences shall run consecutively. We affirm.
        Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The
motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously
examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this
appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy
of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of
the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right
to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised
Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to
seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court-
appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
        Appellant filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have reviewed
Appellant’s Anders response. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a
court of appeals may only 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. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following
the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed
the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1

        1
         We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68
of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

                                                    2
       We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.

                                                PER CURIAM

February 23, 2023
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

                                        3