David Harold Sehon v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 09-24-00366-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00366-CR __________________

DAVID HAROLD SEHON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A240070-R __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted David Harold Sehon (“Appellant” or “Sehon”) for

felony theft. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D). Sehon pleaded “not guilty,”

and was represented by counsel. The jury found him guilty of the offense as charged

in the indictment. After hearing evidence on punishment, the jury assessed a

punishment of twenty-four months in a state jail facility. Sehon timely filed a notice

of appeal.

1 Sehon’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents

counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous.

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 Sehon to file a pro se brief,

and Sehon filed a pro se brief.

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

an Anders brief, the 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. (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we

need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response.

Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.

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, counsel’s brief, and Sehon’s pro se brief, and have found no reversible error

and nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827-

2 28 (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered

the issues raised in 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, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We affirm the trial

court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on January 20, 2026 Opinion Delivered January 21, 2026 Do Not Publish

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

1 Sehon 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