Carey Dexter Booker v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-16-00336-CR ____________________ CAREY DEXTER BOOKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15-21274 ________________________________________________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this appeal, Carey Dexter Booker’s1 appellate counsel filed a brief in which he contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a decision reversing Booker’s conviction for aggravated assault. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a)(1) (West 2011). The jury found Booker guilty of aggravated assault. 1 According to the record, Carey Dexter Booker is also known as Gizmo Booker, Gizmo, and Nookie. 1 Although aggravated assault is usually punishable as a second-degree felony, based on an enhancement paragraph in the indictment alleging that Booker had previously been convicted of a felony, and the jury’s finding that Booker had been convicted of a prior felony offense, the trial court instructed the jury that it could consider a prison sentence ranging between five years to life. See id. § 12.42(b) (West Supp. 2016) (providing enhanced penalties for repeat and habitual felony offenders),2 § 22.02(b) (West 2011) (providing that a conviction for aggravated assault is generally punishable as a second-degree felony). The jury found that Booker should serve a twenty-five year sentence. In Booker’s appeal, Booker’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Booker’s counsel concludes that any appeal would be frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After receiving the Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Booker an opportunity to file a pro se response. However, no response was filed. After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Booker’s counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that an appeal on the current record 2 We cite to the current version of the Penal Code, as the amendments made to the cited statute do not affect this appeal. 2 would be frivolous. Therefore, it is not necessary that we appoint new counsel to rebrief Booker’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Given our conclusion that no arguable error exists to support Booker’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.3 AFFIRMED. _________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on May 30, 2017 Opinion Delivered August 16, 2017 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ. 3 Booker may challenge our decision in the 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.
