Lonnie Frank Harrison Jr. v. the State of Texas

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.

2

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

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.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.