In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-15-00171-CR
GARY CARSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 102nd District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 14F0103-102
Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Moseley,* JJ.
Memorandum Opinion on Remand by Chief Justice Morriss
________________________
*Bailey C. Moseley, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
Gary Carson was convicted on open guilty pleas in the 102nd Judicial District Court in
Bowie County, Texas, of three counts 1 of assault on public servants who were performing public
servant duties (TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(1) (West Supp. 2018)), the penalties being
enhanced by previous convictions (TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425 (West Supp. 2018)), and
three counts of bail jumping (TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.10 (West 2016)). Carson v. State, 515
S.W.3d 372, 374 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017), rev’d, Carson v.State, Nos. PD-0205-17, PD-
0206-17, PD-0207-17, PD-0208-17, 2018 WL 4472228, at *5 (Tex. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2018).
Carson executed a written waiver of his right to appeal, and after a trial on punishment, the trial
court sentenced him to fifty years’ imprisonment in each of the assault cases and ten years’
imprisonment on each count of the bail jumping. 2 Id. This Court reversed and remanded the case
for a new trial on punishment, having found that Carson’s waiver of appeals was invalid and that
fundamental error was committed at sentencing. Id. at 385–86. The Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals found that Carson’s waiver was valid, reversed our judgment, and remanded the case to
this Court for consideration of Carson’s heretofore unaddressed argument.
1
The charges were made through four separate indictments. Carson has filed a single brief raising the same issues in
all four cases. We reach the same result in the other three cases, released today in separate opinions in cause numbers
06-15-00170-CR, 06-15-00172-CR, and 06-15-00173-CR.
2
The assault charges were enhanced by two prior felony convictions, to which Carson pled true. The fifty-year
sentences were to run concurrently to each other, and the ten-year sentences were to run concurrently to each other,
but consecutively to the fifty-year sentences.
2
Here, Carson appeals from his conviction for assaulting Officer Shawn Jacobs. He
contends that despite the waiver, he may still appeal his conviction under the Young exception.3
Carson, 2018 WL 4472228, at *5.
We addressed this issue in detail in our opinion of this date on Carson’s appeal in cause
number 06-15-00170-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise overrule Carson’s point of
error here.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Date Submitted: October 25, 2018
Date Decided: January 9, 2019
Do Not Publish
3
Because the underlying facts of the case have been discussed in detail in our prior opinion in this case, we address
only those facts relevant to the point of error presented on remand.
3