Dustin Daniel Harding v. State

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Do Not Publish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