Tracy Bonner v. State

In The Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-10-00207-CR ______________________________

TRACY BONNER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court

Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 39456-A

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tracy Bonner appeals his conviction of guilt for the offense of aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first degree felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a) (West 2011). Bonner was sentenced to eleven years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. Bonner was represented by different appointed counsel at trial and on appeal.

Bonner’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 360 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Bonner on June 24, 2011. Bonner was informed of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

Bonner filed his pro se response on July 29, 2011, in which he complains that the case brought against him was ―bogus,‖ and that his counsel was of no help to him. Bonner further points out alleged factual inaccuracies in the Anders brief filed by appellate counsel.1 The crux of Bonner’s response is an argument over his guilt based on the evidence presented at trial. We construe this complaint as one pertaining to the legal sufficiency of the evidence.

In determining whether an appeal is wholly frivolous, we independently review the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record in deciding whether there are arguable (nonfrivolous) issues that would support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). After independent review of the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, we agree with counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal.

In a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or affirmed. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2

Bailey C. Moseley Justice

Date Submitted: August 19, 2011 Date Decided: September 1, 2011 was coached in her testimony; Jane Doe did not help him feed his dogs; when Jane Doe’s grandmother found out he was living with his girlfriend, this whole thing started; there was no evidence that he touched Jane Doe. Do Not Publish