John Brandon Glen Huggins v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 23, 2023
• Docket: 11-22-00140-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion filed February 23, 2023

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-22-00140-CR ___________

JOHN BRANDON GLEN HUGGINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court Ector County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. A-21-1284-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION John Brandon Glen Huggins, Appellant, waived his right to a jury and entered an open plea of guilty to three counts of possession of child pornography. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 43.26(a), (d) (West 2016). The trial court admonished Appellant and then, in a unified hearing, heard evidence in support of Appellant’s pleas of guilty and evidence related to punishment. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of three counts of possession of child pornography and assessed Appellant’s punishment for each count at imprisonment for a term of ten years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court also ordered that the sentences shall run consecutively. We affirm. Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, an explanatory letter, and a copy of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record. Counsel advised Appellant of his right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review in order to seek review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. Court- appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Appellant filed a response to counsel’s Anders brief. We have reviewed Appellant’s Anders response. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only 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. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that no arguable grounds for appeal exist. 1

1 We note that Appellant has a right to file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

2 We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PER CURIAM

February 23, 2023 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.