Albert Charles Nugent v. The State of Texas Appeal from 356th District Court of Hardin County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-22-00236-CR NO. 09-22-00237-CR ________________ ALBERT CHARLES NUGENT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 25,365 (count 1 and count 2) ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In an open plea, Appellant Albert Charles Nugent pled guilty to two counts of the second-degree felony offense of indecency with a child by sexual contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.11(a)(1), (d). The trial court assessed punishment of ten years of confinement on each count to run concurrently. See id. § 12.33 (providing punishment range for second-degree felonies). 1 Nugent’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After Nugent’s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Nugent to file a pro se response. Nugent has not filed a response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. 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. 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 reviewed the entire record and counsel’s brief and have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the 2 appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.1 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on February 22, 2023 Opinion Delivered March 8, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ. 1Nugent may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 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.
