Darrell Wayne Lang v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: July 8, 2026
• Docket: 09-24-00259-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00259-CR ________________

DARRELL WAYNE LANG, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22DC-CR-00186 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Darrell Wayne Lang for the first-degree

felony offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §

21.02(b). After a trial, the jury found Lang guilty, and he elected to have the trial

court assess punishment. The trial court sentenced him to life and ordered that the

sentence run consecutively to his prior sentences from the Montgomery County

cases in which he pled guilty to child pornography charges. We affirm the trial

court’s judgment.

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

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

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811,

813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (outlining frivolous brief procedure in contested cases).

On December 20, 2024, after Lang’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension

of time for Lang to file a pro se brief in response. Lang 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 judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on July 14, 2025 Opinion Delivered July 8, 2026 Do Not Publish

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

Lang may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3