Jeffrey Charter Bray v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-24-00063-CR
__________________
JEFFREY CHARTER BRAY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 221st District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 22-09-12719-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A grand jury indicted Appellant Jeffrey Charter Bray (“Appellant” or “Bray”)
for third-degree felony assault of a family member by impeding breath or circulation
with the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon during the offense. See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(B). The indictment included an enhancement paragraph
alleging that Bray had previously been convicted of a felony. Bray pleaded not guilty
to the offense of assault of a family member by impeding breath or circulation. Prior
to the State resting its case in the jury trial, Bray changed his plea to the offense to a
1
plea of guilty, pleaded “true” to the deadly weapon finding, waived his right to a jury
as to punishment, and elected for the trial court to determine his sentence. The trial
court found Bray guilty and found that the allegation that a deadly weapon was used
to be true. During the punishment phase, Bray pleaded “true” to the enhancement.
After hearing evidence, the trial court sentenced Bray to twenty years of
confinement. Bray timely appealed.
On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he
has diligently reviewed the record 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 Bray to file a pro se brief, and we
received no response from Bray.
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
2
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, 2024
Opinion Delivered October 23, 2024
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
1
Bray may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3