Tony Scott Harrelson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 20, 2024
• Docket: 09-24-00189-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00189-CR __________________

TONY SCOTT HARRELSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 22DC-CR-00091 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Tony Scott Harrelson for possession of a

controlled substance, namely methamphetamine, a state jail felony. See Tex. Health

& Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(b). Pursuant to a plea bargain, Harrelson pleaded

“guilty” to the offense. The trial court signed an Order of Deferred Adjudication as

to guilt, placed Harrelson on community supervision for three years, ordered

Harrelson to pay $180 in restitution, and assessed a $1,000 fine.

1 The State filed a motion to revoke Harrelson’s community supervision,

alleging twelve violations of the terms of his community supervision. At a hearing

on the motion, no plea was entered, however Harrelson’s appointed attorney told the

trial court that the hearing was contested, and the trial court entered a plea of “Not

True” on Harrelson’s behalf. After hearing testimony, the trial court found the

evidence sufficient to find all twelve allegations true, revoked Harrelson’s

community supervision, found Harrelson guilty of the offense of possession of a

controlled substance, and sentenced Harrelson to two years of confinement, but

assessed no fine nor restitution. Harrelson timely filed his 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 Harrelson to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Harrelson.

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)

2 (“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

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 November 13, 2024 Opinion Delivered November 20, 2024 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1 Harrelson 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