Albert Charles Nugent v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 8, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00237-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09-22-00236-CR NO. 09-22-00237-CR ________________

ALBERT CHARLES NUGENT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25,365 (count 1 and count 2) ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In an open plea, Appellant Albert Charles Nugent pled guilty to two counts of

the second-degree felony offense of indecency with a child by sexual contact. See

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1), (d). The trial court assessed punishment of ten

years of confinement on each count to run concurrently. See id. § 12.33 (providing

punishment range for second-degree felonies).

1 Nugent’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). After Nugent’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension

of time for Nugent to file a pro se response. Nugent has not filed a response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits

of issues raised in an Anders brief. 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.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of

the record 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 have found no reversible error, and we conclude the

appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we find

it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the

2 appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We

affirm the trial court’s judgments.1

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on February 22, 2023 Opinion Delivered March 8, 2023 Do Not Publish

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

1Nugent may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3