Darrell Gordon v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-09-00415-CR _________________ DARRELL GORDON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-03-03231 CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The trial court convicted Darrell Gordon for possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a), (b) (West 2010). After Gordon pled true to sequenced prior felony enhancement allegations, the trial court assessed punishment at five years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(2) (West Supp. 2010). 1 On appeal, Gordon 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On August 19, 2010, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. Gordon asked for appointment of new appellate counsel but identified no areas of procedural or substantive concern regarding either the appellate record or the trial court proceedings. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 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STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on December 13, 2010 Opinion Delivered March 23, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 2 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
