Bobby Eugene Clark, Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 124th District Court of Gregg County (memorandum opinion by chief justice iii morriss)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-15-00061-CR BOBBY EUGENE CLARK, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 42863 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Following a waiver of the right to trial by jury, Bobby Eugene Clark, Jr., was found guilty of indecency with a child by sexual contact and was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Clark appeals. Clark’s appellate counsel filed a brief that outlined the procedural history of the case, provided a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. In response to counsel’s Anders brief, Clark has filed a pro se response in which he argues (1) that the trial court erred “in considering dates not listed on the indictment, thus not giving Appellant notice of the allegation that the State intend[ed] to prosecute,” (2) that the trial court erred in its determinations involving witness credibility, (3) that the trial court erred in failing to require the child victim to “be evaluated by a professional for a competent screening,” and (4) that he is actually innocent. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire record, as well as Clark’s pro se response, and the State’s response, and have determined 2 that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, we must either dismiss the appeal or affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: January 25, 2016 February 10, 2016 Do Not Publish 1 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 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.
