Jeffrey Charter Bray v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 23, 2024
• Docket: 09-24-00063-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00063-CR __________________

JEFFREY CHARTER BRAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22-09-12719-CR __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Jeffrey Charter Bray (“Appellant” or “Bray”)

for third-degree felony assault of a family member by impeding breath or circulation

with the use or exhibition of a deadly weapon during the offense. See Tex. Penal

Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(B). The indictment included an enhancement paragraph

alleging that Bray had previously been convicted of a felony. Bray pleaded not guilty

to the offense of assault of a family member by impeding breath or circulation. Prior

to the State resting its case in the jury trial, Bray changed his plea to the offense to a

1 plea of guilty, pleaded “true” to the deadly weapon finding, waived his right to a jury

as to punishment, and elected for the trial court to determine his sentence. The trial

court found Bray guilty and found that the allegation that a deadly weapon was used

to be true. During the punishment phase, Bray pleaded “true” to the enhancement.

After hearing evidence, the trial court sentenced Bray to twenty years of

confinement. Bray timely appealed.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has diligently reviewed the record and, based on his professional evaluation of the

record and applicable law, 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 Bray to file a pro se brief, and we

received no response from Bray.

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

but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

2 Procedure 47.1.”). 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.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on October 17, 2024 Opinion Delivered October 23, 2024 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.

1 Bray may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3