Christopher Todd Duhon v. The State of TexasAppeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Opinion issued April 8, 2014 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-13-00597-CR CHRISTOPHER TODD DUHON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12-14772 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Christopher Todd Duhon, pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a) (West 2011). In accordance with appellant s plea-bargain agreement with the State, the trial court found sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty, but deferred making any finding regarding appellant s guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of 5 years and fined appellant $1,000. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 § 5(a) (West Supp. 2012). The State then filed a motion to adjudicate appellant s guilt. See id. §§ 5(b), 21(e). Appellant pleaded true to three alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. After a hearing, the trial court found these three allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to 12 years in prison. See id. §§ 5(b), 21(b), 23. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). In his pro se response, appellant asserts that (1) the 12 year sentence violates the Eight Amendment of the United States Constitution, (2) the judge s conduct 2 denied him a fair hearing, and (3) he was prejudiced by ineffective assistance of counsel. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court and not counsel determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel s motion to withdraw.1 Attorney Gaylyn Leon Cooper must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). 1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4

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.