Christopher Alan Ray v. State

In The Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00182-CR CHRISTOPHER ALAN RAY, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 115th District Court

Upshur County, Texas Trial Court No. 16,784

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

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION On conviction by a jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child by sexual contact, Christopher Alan Ray was sentenced to twenty-five years’ and five years’ confinement, respectively. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2015), § 21.11 (West 2011). Ray appeals.

Ray’s appellate attorney filed a brief setting out the procedural history of the case, summarizing the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and concluding that the appellate record presents no arguable grounds to be raised on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no plausible appellate issues to be advanced. See 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. 1981); 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 forwarded copies of his brief and motion to withdraw to Ray and informed him of his rights to review the appellate record and to file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. Ray filed a pro se response in which he (1) pointed out impeachment evidence, (2) alleged witness and prosecutorial bias, (3) alleged that the victim’s mother is very angry and is seeking retaliation against him, (4) pointed to credibility issues with the victim’s testimony, (5) pointed to credibility issues with the expert witness testimony, (6) pointed out that his counsel was retained, not appointed, (7) claimed that the jury was denied evidence in response to one of their questions, (8) stated that he was not read his rights until after he was put in jail, and (9) stated that he was not read his rights prior to an interview with law enforcement.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record, as well as Ray’s pro se brief, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). Therefore, we agree with counsel’s assessment that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: May 13, 2016 Date Decided: May 20, 2016 Do Not Publish