Clarence Harvard Goodson II v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 221st District Court of Montgomery County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-10-00518-CR ____________________ CLARENCE HARVARD GOODSON II, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ___________________________________________________________ _________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-03-03133 CR _____________________________________________________________ ________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Clarence Harvard Goodson II guilty of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony, and assessed punishment at ten years of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Goodson s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted extensions of time for appellant to 1 file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant other than a request for new counsel. We reviewed the appellate record. We agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. It is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The State agrees that the attorney fee assessment of $3,350 should be deleted from the judgment; the record does not reflect that the trial court addressed Goodson s ability to pay attorney fees. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2010); Roberts v. State, 327 S.W.3d 880, 883-84 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2010, no pet.). We modify the judgment to delete the requirement that Goodson pay attorney fees of $3,350. The trial court s judgment is affirmed as modified.1 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on September 28, 2011 Opinion Delivered October 19, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
