Dustin Daniel Harding v. The State of Texas Appeal from 359th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-17-00387-CR ____________________ DUSTIN DANIEL HARDING, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 16-04-04189-CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Dustin Daniel Harding appeals his conviction of continuous sexual abuse of a child. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02(b) (West Supp. 2018).1 A jury found Harding guilty and sentenced him to 75 years confinement. The attorney appointed to represent Harding in his appeal filed an Anders brief, which asserted that the attorney carefully reviewed the record and the law and found no meritorious claims 1 We cite the current version of the statute as subsequent amendments do not affect our disposition. 1 on which he could argue Harding’s conviction should be reversed. After receiving Harding’s Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Harding to file a pro se response. Harding requested an extension to file a pro se brief, and we granted his request. However, Harding did not file a brief with the court. We have reviewed the record and agree with Harding’s counsel that no arguable issues exist to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Therefore, it is not necessary that we appoint new counsel to rebrief Harding’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 grounds exist to support Harding’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2 AFFIRMED. _________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice 2 Harding may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 Submitted on December 4, 2018 Opinion Delivered January 30, 2019 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ 3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.
