David Hobbs Ray v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 02-25-00271-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-25-00266-CR No. 02-25-00267-CR No. 02-25-00268-CR No. 02-25-00269-CR No. 02-25-00270-CR No. 02-25-00271-CR No. 02-25-00272-CR No. 02-25-00273-CR No. 02-25-00274-CR No. 02-25-00275-CR No. 02-25-00276-CR ___________________________

DAVID HOBBS RAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS On Appeal from the 78th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court Nos. DC78-CR2023-1464-1, DC78-CR2023-1464-2,

DC78-CR2023-1464-3, DC78-CR2023-1464-4,

DC78-CR2023-1464-5, DC78-CR2023-1464-6,

DC78-CR2023-1464-7, DC78-CR2023-1464-8,

DC78-CR2023-1464-9, DC78-CR2023-1464-10,

DC78-CR2023-1464-11

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Walker Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant David Hobbs Ray pleaded guilty, without the benefit of a plea

bargain, to possessing eleven separate images of child pornography. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 43.26. The trial court held a unitary hearing on guilt-innocence and

punishment, at which Ray’s signed judicial confessions to each offense were admitted

into evidence. The trial court found Ray guilty and, after hearing evidence, assessed

his punishment at ten years’ confinement for Counts Three and Eight and five years’

confinement for each of the remaining counts. The trial court also ordered that the

Counts One and Three judgments be served consecutively and that the remaining

judgments be served concurrently. Ray timely filed a notice of appeal from all eleven

judgments.

After concluding that Ray’s appeals are frivolous, his court-appointed appellate

attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and, in support of that motion, a brief.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Counsel’s

motion and brief meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.

See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400. Additionally, in compliance with Kelly v. State, Ray’s

counsel has provided Ray with copies of the brief, motion to withdraw, and record

and informed Ray of his right to file a pro se response and to seek further review if we

affirm the judgments. See 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court

3 likewise mailed Ray a letter advising him that he had the opportunity to file a pro se

response to the Anders brief, but he did not do so.

The State declined to file a brief and instead filed a letter in which it agreed

with Ray’s appointed counsel that the appeals are frivolous. However, the State

pointed out in its letter that the Count Ten judgment might need to be modified

because it shows the sentence of confinement as ten years instead of the five years the

trial court orally pronounced.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and have determined

that––other than the judgment error pointed out by the State––these appeals are

wholly frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might

arguably support the appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005); see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We may correct and modify the judgment of a trial court to make the record

speak the truth when we have the necessary data and information to do so. See Ette v.

State, 551 S.W.3d 783, 792 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2017), aff’d, 559 S.W.3d 511 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2018); see also Ray v. State, No. 05-17-00820, 2018 WL 1149421, at *2 (Tex.

App.—Dallas Mar. 5, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)

(modifying judgment in Anders appeal). Because the trial court’s oral pronouncement

controls, we modify the Count Ten judgment to read that the sentence is “FIVE (5)

YEARS TDCJ, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.” See Tex. R. App.

P. 43.2(b).

4 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw1 and affirm the trial court’s Counts

One through Nine and Eleven judgments as-is and the Count Ten judgment as

modified.

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker Justice

Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: March 12, 2026

1 The trial court appointed the Wichita County Public Defender to represent Ray on appeal. Although Ethan Longoria filed the Anders brief and motion to withdraw on behalf of that office, we granted a motion to substitute David Bost as Ray’s counsel after Longoria left the office’s employment.