Isaac Hudson Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 260th District Court of Orange County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-18-00408-CR __________________ ISAAC HUDSON JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 260th District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. D180282-R __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury found Isaac Hudson Jr. guilty of felony assault, a third-degree felony, and the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of confinement and assessed a $1,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (West 2019). 1 Hudson’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, 1 We cite to the current version of the statute as amendments subsequent to Hudson’s offense do not affect our disposition. 1 and he concludes the appeal is frivolous and without merit and that there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We notified Hudson of his right to file a pro se brief, but we have not received a response from Hudson. Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have independently examined the entire appellate record in this matter. We conclude that no reversible error exists, no arguable issues support an appeal, and this appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2 2 Hudson may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on April 23, 2019 Opinion Delivered May 8, 2019 Do Not Publish Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, 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.
