Torye Dorsey 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. 09-22-00059-CR __________________ TORYE DORSEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19-32697 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In July 2019, a grand jury indicted Appellant Torye Dorsey (“Appellant” or “Dorsey”) for possession of a firearm by a felon, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 46.04(a), (e). Dorsey pleaded “no contest” and waived his right to a jury trial. In November 2019, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Dorsey on community supervision for ten years. In 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke and alleged that Dorsey had violated three terms of his deferred community supervision. At a hearing on the 1 motion to revoke, Dorsey pleaded “true” to the allegations, and the trial court reset sentencing until the trial court could obtain an updated report on Dorsey’s probation. At a later hearing and based on Dorsey’s disciplinary reports from jail, the trial court rejected the plea agreement which would have capped Dorsey’s punishment at three years. The trial court explained that Dorsey would have the opportunity to withdraw his earlier pleas of “true,” and reset the hearing for sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, Dorsey confirmed he did not want to withdraw his earlier pleas of “true” and he wanted to proceed with sentencing. The trial court found that Dorsey entered his pleas of “true” freely and voluntarily, found the evidence sufficient to find Dorsey guilty of the offense of third-degree felony possession of a firearm by a felon, revoked Dorsey’s community supervision, and sentenced Dorsey to five years in prison. Dorsey appealed. On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, 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 granted an extension of time for Dorsey to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Dorsey. Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson 2 v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. 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. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on October 17, 2022 Opinion Delivered October 26, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. Dorsey may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3 1
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.
