Douglas Edward Gosby Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 128th District Court of Orange County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-18-00041-CR ____________________ DOUGLAS EDWARD GOSBY JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A170334-R __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Douglas Edward Gosby Jr. was indicted for sexual assault of a child, a second-degree felony. Gosby waived his right to a jury trial and pleaded guilty to sexual assault of a child in an open plea. After conducting a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Gosby to twelve years of confinement and also assessed a $1000 fine. Gosby’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. 1 California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On April 30, 2018, we granted an extension of time for Gosby to file a pro se brief, and Gosby filed a pro se response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (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 reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on June 26, 2018 Opinion Delivered July 25, 2018 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 1 Gosby may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
