Sebastion Eleazar Perkins v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 24, 2024
• Docket: 09-23-00333-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09-23-00333-CR ________________

SABASTION ELEAZAR PERKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 27654 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Sabastion Eleazar Perkins was charged with sexual assault, a

second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011. A jury found Perkins

guilty and assessed his punishment at sixteen years of confinement. This appeal

followed.

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

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). After Perkins’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension

of time for Perkins to file a pro se response. Perkins has not filed a response.

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 have found no reversible error, and we

conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 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.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on June 6, 2024 Opinion Delivered July 24, 2024 Do Not Publish

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

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