Torye Dorsey v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-22-00059-CR
__________________
TORYE DORSEY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 19-32697
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In July 2019, a grand jury indicted Appellant Torye Dorsey (“Appellant” or
“Dorsey”) for possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 46.04(a), (e). Dorsey pleaded “no contest” and waived his right
to a jury trial. In November 2019, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and
placed Dorsey on community supervision for ten years.
In 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke and alleged that Dorsey had
violated three terms of his deferred community supervision. At a hearing on the
1
motion to revoke, Dorsey pleaded “true” to the allegations, and the trial court reset
sentencing until the trial court could obtain an updated report on Dorsey’s probation.
At a later hearing and based on Dorsey’s disciplinary reports from jail, the trial court
rejected the plea agreement which would have capped Dorsey’s punishment at three
years. The trial court explained that Dorsey would have the opportunity to withdraw
his earlier pleas of “true,” and reset the hearing for sentencing. At the sentencing
hearing, Dorsey confirmed he did not want to withdraw his earlier pleas of “true”
and he wanted to proceed with sentencing. The trial court found that Dorsey entered
his pleas of “true” freely and voluntarily, found the evidence sufficient to find
Dorsey guilty of the offense of third-degree felony possession of a firearm by a felon,
revoked Dorsey’s community supervision, and sentenced Dorsey to five years in
prison. Dorsey appealed.
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, 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 Dorsey to file a pro se brief, and we received no
response from Dorsey.
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
2
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
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.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on October 17, 2022
Opinion Delivered October 26, 2022
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
1
Dorsey may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3