Barron Washington v. The State of Texas Appeal from 221st District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-16-00174-CR _________________ BARRON WASHINGTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15-10-11054-CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Barron Washington, was indicted for possession of a controlled substance, a second degree felony enhanced for punishment as a first degree felony based on Washington’s prior convictions for robbery, burglary of a building, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.102(3)(D), 481.115(d) (West 2017); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(b) (West Supp. 2016). On May 2, 2016, Washington pled not guilty to the charge, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the guilt-innocence phase, the jury 1 found Washington guilty of the offense as charged. The trial court accepted the jury’s verdict and dismissed the jury, then proceeded to the punishment phase of the trial.1 At the commencement of the punishment phase, Washington pled not true to the enhancement paragraphs contained in the indictment. The trial court heard evidence regarding the prior felony convictions, found the enhancement paragraphs true, and sentenced Washington to thirty-five years of confinement. Washington timely filed a notice of appeal. Washington’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 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). On November 30, 2016, we notified Washington that a pro se brief was due on or before January 30, 2017, and on January 17, 2017, Washington filed a pro se brief. In response, the State filed a letter waiving its opportunity to respond to Washington’s pro se brief, but reserving the right to file a responsive brief in the event that this court remands the matter to the trial court for appointment of new counsel. 1 Punishment was assessed by the court pursuant to the written election filed by Washington’s counsel shortly before jury selection began. 2 We have reviewed Washington’s pro se brief and independently examined the entire appellate record in this matter. We conclude that no reversible error exists, no arguable issues support an appeal, and this appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we do not address the merits of issues raised in the Anders brief or Washington’s pro se response. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Nor do we find it necessary 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. ______________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on February 14, 2017 Opinion Delivered September 20, 2017 Do not publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 2 Washington may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3
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.
