Matthew Wade Grogan v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: 09-25-00344-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00344-CR __________________

MATTHEW WADE GROGAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A180220-R __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Matthew Wade Grogan (“Appellant” or

“Grogan”) for indecency with a child, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code

Ann. § 21.11. Grogan pleaded “guilty” to the offense pursuant to a plea bargain

agreement, and the trial court found Grogan guilty, deferred adjudication of guilt,

and placed Grogan on community supervision for ten years. The State filed a Motion

to Impose Guilt and alleged that Grogan had violated six terms of his deferred

community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, Grogan pleaded “true” to the

1 allegations, and the trial court reset sentencing until the trial court could obtain an

updated presentence investigation report. At a later hearing and based on Grogan’s

updated presentencing investigation report, the trial court found the evidence

sufficient to find the allegations true, revoked Grogan’s community supervision,

found Grogan guilty of the offense of indecency with a child, and sentenced Grogan

to seven years of confinement. Grogan timely filed an appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that he has

reviewed the case 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 Grogan to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Grogan.

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.1

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on May 15, 2026 Opinion Delivered May 27, 2026 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1 Grogan 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