Cody Oquinn Coward v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: July 8, 2026
• Docket: 09-25-00370-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-25-00370-CR ________________

CODY OQUINN COWARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 26093 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant Cody Oquinn Coward

pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 481.116(d). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Coward

guilty of possession of a controlled substance but deferred further proceedings and

placed Coward on community supervision for six years.

1 Subsequently, prior to the expiration of the term of community supervision,

the State filed a Motion to revoke Coward’s community supervision. Coward

pleaded “true” to violating certain terms of the community supervision order. The

trial court found Coward guilty, revoked Coward’s community supervision, and

assessed punishment at seven years of confinement.

Coward’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he then

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 576 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Coward was notified

of his right to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so. 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.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. at 827-28. Therefore,

we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal.

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

trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on June 23, 2026 Opinion Delivered July 8, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1 Coward 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