Lonnie Frank Harrison Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 09-25-00166-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00166-CR __________________

LONNIE FRANK HARRISON JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 28,220 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Lonnie Frank Harrison Jr. (“Appellant” or

“Harrison”) for indecency with a child by sexual contact, a second-degree felony,

indecency with a child by exposure, a third-degree felony, and two counts of

aggravated sexual assault of a child, first-degree felonies. 1 See Tex. Penal Code

The indictment for the aggravated sexual assault was initially filed in trial cause 1

number 28,221, and later it was consolidated into cause number 28,220 before trial. 1 Ann. §§ 21.11, 22.021. Harrison pleaded “not guilty,” but the jury found Harrison

guilty of the offenses of indecency with a child by sexual contact and indecency with

a child by exposure. At a hearing on punishment, the trial court sentenced Harrison

to twenty years of confinement for indecency with a child by sexual contact and two

years of confinement for indecency with a child, with the sentences running

concurrently. Harrison timely filed an appeal.

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

has reviewed the case and, based on her 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 Harrison to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Harrison.

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

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.2

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on May 20, 2026 Opinion Delivered May 27, 2026 Do Not Publish

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

2 Harrison may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3