Derwin Bernard Arline v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-25-00106-CR
NO. 09-25-00107-CR
________________

DERWIN BERNARD ARLINE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court
Hardin County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 27986 and 27987
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Derwin Bernard Arline was charged with indecency with a child by

sexual contact in cause number 27986 and with aggravated sexual assault of a child

in cause number 27987, second- and first-degree felonies, respectively. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11, 22.021. The cases were consolidated for trial and the jury

convicted Arline of both offenses. Arline chose to have the trial court determine his

sentences, and the trial court sentenced Arline to twenty years in the Texas

1
Department of Criminal Justice and a $100 fine in cause number 27986. The trial

court also sentenced Arline to life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and

a $100 fine in cause number 27987. The court ordered the two sentences to run

concurrently. This appeal followed.

Arline’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he also

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Arline was notified

of his right to file a pro se brief, and he did so on October 6, 2025. The Court of

Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an

Anders brief or pro se response. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine: (1) “that the appeal is

wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and

finds no reversible error[;]” or (2) “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.

We have reviewed the appellate record and considered Appellant’s pro se

response, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an

appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

2
counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.1

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT
Justice

Submitted on December 9, 2025
Opinion Delivered December 10, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1
Arline may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3