Larry Lee Wright v. The State of Texas Appeal from 102nd District Court of Red River County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-18-00033-CR LARRY LEE WRIGHT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Red River County, Texas Trial Court No. CR02467 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley MEMORANDUM OPINION Larry Lee Wright pled guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child. 1 Following a bench trial on punishment, Wright was sentenced to twenty-five years’ incarceration. Wright’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. Counsel provided Wright with a copy of the brief, the appellate record, and the motion to withdraw. Counsel also informed Wright of his right to review the record and file a pro se response. By letter dated June 28, 2018, this Court advised Wright that any pro se response was due on or before July 30, 2018. By letter dated August 9, 2018, this Court further advised Wright that this case had been set for submission on August 30, 2018. We received neither a pro se response from Wright nor a motion requesting an extension of time in which to file such a response. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2017). 2 We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellant record, and we agree that no arguable issue supports 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. 2 Bailey C. Moseley Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: August 30, 2018 August 31, 2018 Do Not Publish 2 Since we agree that 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. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) 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, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) 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.
