Arthur Lewis Davison v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00229-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00229-CR __________________

ARTHUR LEWIS DAVISON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25796 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Arthur Lewis Davison (“Appellant” or

“Davison”) for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 46.04(a) (“Unlawful Possession of Firearm.”). The State alleged a previous

felony conviction as an enhancement. Davison pleaded “not guilty” to the offense.

The jury found Davison guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon as

alleged in the indictment. During the punishment phase of trial, Davison pleaded

“true” to the alleged enhancement, and after hearing evidence, the jury assessed

1 punishment at eight years in prison and a fine of $10,000, and the trial court

sentenced Davison in accordance with the jury’s verdict. Davison timely filed his

appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered 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 Davison to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Davison.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this 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 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).

2 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on February 25, 2025 Opinion Delivered March 5, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

1 Davison may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3