David Dewayne Garrett 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. 09-18-00190-CR __________________ DAVID DEWAYNE GARRETT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 128th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. A170319-R __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found appellant David Dewayne Garrett 1 guilty of burglary of a habitation and assessed punishment as a previous felony offender at fifty-five years of imprisonment and a $7500 fine. Garrett’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is 1 Although not an arguable issue, we note that appellant’s middle name is misspelled in the indictment and the trial court’s judgment. 1 frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 19, 2018, we granted an extension of time for Garrett to file a pro se brief. Garrett filed a pro se brief in 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. 2 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice 2 Garrett may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 Submitted on June 6, 2019 Opinion Delivered August 7, 2019 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3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.
