Cedrick Deon Clark v. the State of Texas

Opinion

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00052-CR

CEDRICK DEON CLARK, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 413th District Court Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-F201900014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a bench trial, the trial court found Cedrick Deon Clark guilty of four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(2). The trial court found an enhancement paragraph true and assessed Clark’s punishment on each count at life confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, to run consecutively. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 3.03; 12.32; 12.42(c)(1). This appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgments for each offense.

Clark’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Clark filed a pro se response to his appointed counsel’s Anders brief. Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Clark is granted.

Cedrick Deon Clark v. The State of Texas Page 2

MATT JOHNSON

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Wright 1 Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed January 16, 2025 Do not publish [CRPM]

1The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.

Cedrick Deon Clark v. The State of Texas Page 3