James Ray Duncanson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 20, 2022
• Docket: 09-21-00059-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-21-00059-CR ________________

JAMES RAY DUNCANSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 52nd District Court Coryell County , Texas Trial Cause No. 19-25491 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In an open plea, appellant James Ray Duncanson pleaded guilty to prostitution

solicitation of a person under 18 years old. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 43.02(c-1). After

conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court assessed Duncanson’s punishment

at five years incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional

Division.1

1 This case was transferred to this Court from the Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco, Texas, pursuant to a docket equalization order. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001. 1 Duncanson’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See

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

Crim. App. 1978). On September 7, 2021, we granted an extension of time for

Duncanson to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Duncanson.

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

that no arguable issues support the appeal. 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.2

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

Submitted on February 23, 2022 Opinion Delivered April 20, 2022 Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

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