Donald Ray Redmond Jr. v. State

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00026-CR

__________________

DONALD RAY REDMOND JR., Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CR33930

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Donald Ray Redmond Jr. for possession of a controlled substance—namely, cocaine—in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams with intent to deliver. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.112(d) (West 2017); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42 (West 2019). 1 The

1 We cite the current statutes because any amendments after Redmond’s offense do not affect our disposition in this particular matter.

2

indictment included numerous enhancement paragraphs. Redmond waived his right to a jury trial, he pleaded “not guilty,” the matter was tried to the bench, and the court found Redmond guilty. Redmond pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraphs, and the trial court assessed punishment at thirty-five years of confinement and restitution of $180. Redmond appealed.

On appeal, Redmond’s court-appointed attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief stating that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, he concluded that the appeal lacks merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. 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 Redmond to file a pro se brief, and Redmond filed no response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings 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 we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error

3

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. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2 AFFIRMED.

_________________________

LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on September 12, 2019 Opinion Delivered October 2, 2019 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

2 Redmond may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.