Dustin Daniel Harding v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 30, 2019
• Docket: 09-17-00387-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________

NO. 09-17-00387-CR ____________________

DUSTIN DANIEL HARDING, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 16-04-04189-CR ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Dustin Daniel Harding appeals his conviction of continuous sexual abuse of a

child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b) (West Supp. 2018).1 A jury found

Harding guilty and sentenced him to 75 years confinement. The attorney appointed

to represent Harding in his appeal filed an Anders brief, which asserted that the

attorney carefully reviewed the record and the law and found no meritorious claims

1 We cite the current version of the statute as subsequent amendments do not affect our disposition. 1 on which he could argue Harding’s conviction should be reversed. After receiving

Harding’s Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Harding to file a

pro se response. Harding requested an extension to file a pro se brief, and we granted

his request. However, Harding did not file a brief with the court.

We have reviewed the record and agree with Harding’s counsel that no

arguable issues exist to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,

744–45 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978);

Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Therefore, it is not

necessary that we appoint new counsel to rebrief Harding’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals

to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for

the appeal). Given our conclusion that no arguable grounds exist to support

Harding’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

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

2 Submitted on December 4, 2018 Opinion Delivered January 30, 2019 Do Not Publish

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