Douglas Edward Gosby Jr. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 25, 2018
• Docket: 09-18-00041-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________

NO. 09-18-00041-CR ____________________

DOUGLAS EDWARD GOSBY JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A170334-R __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Douglas Edward Gosby Jr. was indicted for sexual assault of a

child, a second-degree felony. Gosby waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded

guilty to sexual assault of a child in an open plea. After conducting a sentencing

hearing, the trial court sentenced Gosby to twelve years of confinement and also

assessed a $1000 fine.

Gosby’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

1 California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). On April 30, 2018, we granted an extension of time for Gosby to file a pro se

brief, and Gosby filed a pro se response. 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 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.

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary

to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813

S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on June 26, 2018 Opinion Delivered July 25, 2018 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 1 Gosby may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2