09-23-00333-CR
Tex. App.
Jul 24, 2024

SABASTION ELEAZAR PERKINS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

NO. 09-23-00333-CR

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

July 24, 2024

On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 27654

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Sabastion Eleazar Perkins was charged with sexual assault, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011. A jury found Perkins guilty and assessed his punishment at sixteen years of confinement. This appeal followed.

Perkins‘s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel‘s professional evaluation of the record and concludes 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 Perkins‘s counsel filed his brief, we granted an extension of time for Perkins to file a pro se response. Perkins has not filed a response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this 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 appellate record and counsel‘s brief and have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 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 June 6, 2024

Opinion Delivered July 24, 2024

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

Notes

1
Perkins may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.