David Dewayne Garrett v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-18-00190-CR
__________________
DAVID DEWAYNE GARRETT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 128th District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. A170319-R
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant David Dewayne Garrett 1 guilty of burglary of a
habitation and assessed punishment as a previous felony offender at fifty-five years
of imprisonment and a $7500 fine. Garrett’s appellate counsel filed a brief that
presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is
1
Although not an arguable issue, we note that appellant’s middle name is
misspelled in the indictment and the trial court’s judgment.
1
frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d
807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
On November 19, 2018, we granted an extension of time for Garrett to file a
pro se brief. Garrett filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals
has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or a
pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Rather, an appellate court may 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.” Id.
We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion
that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. 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. 2
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
2
Garrett may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2
Submitted on June 6, 2019
Opinion Delivered August 7, 2019
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3