Jeffrey Charter Bray v. the State of Texas

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

2

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

3

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.