Joel Matthew Loker v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 284th District Court of Montgomery County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-10-00203-CR _________________ JOEL MATTHEW LOKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-06-05989 CR _______________________________________________________________ ___ ______ MEMORANDUM OPINION Joel Matthew Loker appeals his conviction, enhanced with three prior convictions, on his open plea of guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court sentenced Loker to seventy-five years in prison. Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and that 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 September 2, 2010, we granted an extension of time for Loker to file a pro se brief. Loker filed a pro se brief alleging improper use of 1 impact statement in punishment phase, improper outcry statement, false witness statement, and ineffective assistance of counsel. In Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.Crim. App. 2005), the Court of Criminal Appeals explained the process an appellate court follows in considering Anders briefs and pro se responses. An appellate court may determine either (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error ; or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Id. We have independently examined the clerk's record, the reporter's record, the Anders brief, and the pro se brief in this case, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. The appeal is wholly frivolous. We find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Id; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice 1 Loker may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. Tex. R. App. P. 68. Additionally, relief in appropriate cases for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel may be available through an application for a writ of habeas corpus. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 2 Submitted on May 31, 2011 Opinion Delivered July 27, 2011 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 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.
