Owen Tate Emmett v. The State of Texas Appeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-22-00185-CR ________________ OWEN TATE EMMETT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 435th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 19-11-15408-CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant Owen Emmett pleaded guilty to injury to a child, a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04(a)(1). The plea agreement provided for a maximum of 45 years imprisonment, allowed the trial court to assess Appellant’s punishment, and permitted Appellant to appeal his sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 40 years in the 1 Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed. Emmett’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 4, 2022, we notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing so, but we received no response from Appellant. We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. 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. ________________________________ JAY WRIGHT Justice Submitted on January 27, 2023 Opinion Delivered March 15, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 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.
