Demorris T Albright v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: June 11, 2026
• Docket: 06-26-00014-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00014-CR

DEMORRIS T ALBRIGHT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 396th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 1725366

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

Demorris T. Albright pled guilty to intentionally or knowingly possessing (1) with

intent to deliver methamphetamine, of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, including

any adulterants or dilutants; (2) fentanyl, of four grams or more, but less than 200 grams,

including any adulterants or dilutants; and (3) cocaine, of less than one gram, including any

adulterants or dilutants. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.112(d), 481.115(b),

(d) (Supp.). Albright signed the written admonishments that his punishment range was

fifteen to ninety-nine years, or life in prison. There was a punishment hearing, and the trial

court sentenced Albright to fifty years’ incarceration for count one, twenty years’

incarceration for count two, and two years’ incarceration for count three, to run concurrently.

Albright appeals.1

Albright’s attorney has filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court

proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the

requirements of Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). We follow the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals in deciding the issues presented. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking

to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

On April 2, 2026, counsel sent a letter to Albright attaching copies of the brief, the

motion to withdraw, and a pro se motion for access to the record lacking only Albright’s

signature. The letter also outlined Albright’s pro se rights, including his rights to review the

record and file a pro se response. By letter dated April 29, this Court informed Albright that

the case would be set for submission on May 20, and any pro se response was due on or

before May 20. We received neither a pro se response from Albright nor a motion requesting

an extension of time in which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue

supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the

trial court’s judgment. Id.

3 We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: May 20, 2026 Date Decided: June 11, 2026

Do Not Publish

2 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68 4