Russell Earl Gluyas v. State, No. 09-07-00496-CR (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 11, 2008). · Go Syfert
Russell Earl Gluyas v. State, No. 09-07-00496-CR (Tex. App.—Beaumont June 11, 2008). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Russell Earl Gluyas
v.
State
09-07-00496-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Jun 11, 2008.
Unpublished opinion
Published

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-07-496 CR

____________________



RUSSELL EARL GLUYAS, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 221st District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 06-05-04470-CR




MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Russell Earl Gluyas guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(1)(B), (2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2007). The trial court sentenced Gluyas to thirty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

On appeal, Gluyas's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 21, 2008, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant.

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. (1)

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice



Submitted on May 28, 2008

Opinion Delivered June 11, 2008

Do not publish



Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

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