Donald Brassfield v. The State of Texas Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-19-00432-CR Donald BRASSFIELD, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 16-1733-CR-A Honorable William D. Old, III, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice Delivered and Filed: July 14, 2021 AFFIRMED Appellant Donald Brassfield was charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child under fourteen, a felony. Upon being convicted in a bench trial, Brassfield was sentenced to fifty years in prison. Brassfield’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises no arguable issues and concludes the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and In re N.F.M., No. 04-18-00475-CV, 2018 WL 6624409 (Tex. App.––San 04-19-00432-CR Antonio Dec. 19, 2018, no pet.) (en banc). Counsel certified that Brassfield was given: (1) a copy of the brief, (2) a copy of the motion to withdraw, and (3) a motion to allow him to request the appellate record. Counsel also informed Brassfield of his right to file his own brief. Brassfield sent a response on his own behalf complaining of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and denial of due process. When an Anders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed, we must review the entire record and: (1) determine the appeal is without merit and issue an opinion stating there is no reversible error, or (2) determine there are arguable grounds for appeal and issue an opinion remanding the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding court of appeals may address merits of issues raised by pro se only after any arguable grounds have been briefed by new appointed counsel)). We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Brassfield’s response. We find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is without merit. See id. We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Brassfield’s appointed counsel and affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 689 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Villanueva v. State, 209 S.W.3d 239, 249 (Tex. App.—Waco 2006, no pet.); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Brassfield wish to seek further review of this case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either the day our judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is -2- 04-19-00432-CR overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Do not publish -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.
