Tyrone Gilbert v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-10-00439-CR ____________________ TYRONE GILBERT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________________________ __________________ _ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 07-02528 ____________________________________________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Tyrone Gilbert of murder. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยง 19.02(b)(1) (West 2011). The jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Gilbert s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 17, 2011, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. Gilbert filed a pro se response alleging 1 insufficiency of the evidence. He also alleged that the trial court erred in admitting photographs of a gun and evidence of extraneous offenses, and in sustaining the State s objection to appellant s jury strikes during voir dire. He filed a motion to abate and remand for appointment of new counsel to raise an issue concerning the jury. In Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that an appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or 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. The Court held in Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) that when a court of appeals finds no issues of arguable merit in an Anders brief, it may explain why the issues have no arguable merit. Id. The provision of analysis [by the appellate court] does not necessarily imply that there is arguable merit that would necessitate appointment of counsel to brief the issues. Id. at 767. We have independently examined the clerk s record, the reporter s record, the Anders brief, and the pro se responses in this case, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. at 766-67. We find it unnecessary to order appointment of new 2 counsel to re-brief the appeal. 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 Submitted on August 10, 2011 Opinion Delivered August 24, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Gilbert may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 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.
