Larry Allen Coleman v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00269-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00269-CR ________________

LARRY ALLEN COLEMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DCCR0886 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Larry Allen Coleman was charged with forging a financial

instrument. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21(d). 1 Although the offense charged is

a state jail felony, Coleman’s prior felony convictions enhanced his punishment to a

second-degree felony with a penalty range of two to twenty years. See id.; see also

1 Coleman is also known as Tim Jones. 1 Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 12.33 (Second Degree Felony Punishment); 12.425(c)

(Penalties for Repeat and Habitual Offenders on Trial for State Jail Felony).

After electing to allow the jury to determine his sentence, Coleman pleaded

guilty to the forgery charge, pleaded “true” to the six enhancement paragraphs, and

did not contest the underlying facts of three additional charges pending against him

at the time of trial. The jury assessed Coleman’s sentence at twenty years

imprisonment, and this appeal followed.

Coleman’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 3, 2025,

we notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and of the April 4, 2025

deadline for doing so, but we received no response from Appellant.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record 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

appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no

arguable issues support the 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

2 reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas

Rule of Appellate 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.2

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on May 6, 2025 Opinion Delivered May 21, 2025 Do Not Publish

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

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