David Earl Cooksey, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 9th District Court of Montgomery County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-09-00583-CR ____________________ DAVID EARL COOKSEY, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ____________________________________________________________________ _ On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-11-10961 CR ___________________________________________________________________ __ MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court convicted David Earl Cooksey, Jr. for burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated sexual assault. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. ยง 30.02(d) (Vernon 2003). After Cooksey pled true to habitual offender enhancement allegations, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement for life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. On appeal, Cooksey s 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 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On July 1, 2010, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. Cooksey filed a pro se response in which he accepts responsibility and presents no argument that error occurred in the proceedings before the trial court. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on September 10, 2010 Opinion Delivered September 22, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 2 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
