Corey Allen Carter v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 5, 2025
• Docket: 09-23-00353-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09-23-00353-CR ________________

COREY ALLEN CARTER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 27187 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Corey Allen Carter guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child,

a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021. The jury assessed Carter’s

punishment at twenty years of imprisonment. See id. § 12.32.

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

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

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

Crim. App. 1978). On August 21, 2024, we granted an extension of time for Carter

to file a pro se brief. Carter did not file a pro se brief in response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief , an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds

no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine 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. (citations omitted).

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 (Tex. 1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the

entire record, counsel’s brief, and we have found no reversible error, and we

conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.

Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief

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

affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice

Submitted on March 3, 2025 Opinion Delivered March 5, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1Carter 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