Dustin Wayne Harrington v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion by chief justice mckeithen)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-14-00496-CR NO. 09-14-00497-CR ________________ DUSTIN WAYNE HARRINGTON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 14-19207, 14-19726 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Dustin Wayne Harrington pleaded guilty to credit card abuse and possession of a controlled substance. In both cases, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Harrington guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Harrington on community supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Harrington’s unadjudicated community supervision in each case. In both cases, Harrington pleaded “true” to 1 four violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Harrington had violated the conditions of his community supervision in both cases and found Harrington guilty. The trial court assessed punishment at two years of confinement in the credit card abuse case and five years of confinement in the possession of a controlled substance case, with the sentences to run concurrently. Harrington’s appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and conclude the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On January 20, 2015, we granted an extension of time for Harrington to file pro se briefs. We received no response from Harrington. We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support these appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1 1 Harrington may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on April 28, 2015 Opinion Delivered May 6, 2015 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3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.
