In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-14-00201-CR
_________________
BRUCE WAYNE HARP, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR30729
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant Bruce Wayne Harp guilty of continuous sexual abuse
of a child and assessed punishment at thirty-five years imprisonment with the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Institutional Division. Harp timely filed a
notice of appeal.
Harp’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978). Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and
1
concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel
provided Harp with a copy of the brief. We granted an extension of time for Harp
to file a pro se brief. Harp filed a pro se brief raising a number of issues on appeal.
The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders
briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). In these circumstances, we “may determine that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed
the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine that arguable
grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel
may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citations omitted).
We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s
record, and we agree with Harp’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues support
an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new
counsel to re-brief Harp’s appeal. See id.; cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1
1
Harp may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2
AFFIRMED.
_____________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on September 8, 2015
Opinion Delivered December 9, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.
3