Court Opinion

ID: 9948876
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 08:14:57.724675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:12.900756
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals

                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                             ________________
                             NO. 09-23-00202-CR
                             ________________

                  JASON LLOYD SHAUNESEY, Appellant

                                      V.

                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                  On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
                         Orange County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. B220398-R
________________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Jason Lloyd Shaunesey was charged with possession of between

four and 200 grams of methamphetamine, a second-degree felony. Tex. Health &

Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(d). Because of Shaunesey’s prior criminal record, the

charge was enhanced to a first-degree felony. Tex. Penal Code § 12.42(b).

Shaunesey pleaded “guilty,” and the trial court sentenced him to 20 years in the

                                       1
Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal

followed.

      Shaunesey’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 24,

2023, we notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the

December 27, 2023, deadline for doing so. Appellant requested a 60-day extension

of the deadline for filing his pro se brief, and we granted him an extension until

January 26, 2024, but we received no response from Appellant. We have 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.1

      AFFIRMED.
                                                          JAY WRIGHT
                                                             Justice
Submitted on February 29, 2024
Opinion Delivered March 6, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

      1
         Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2