William Gorrell v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00433-CR
NO. 09-24-00434-CR
__________________

WILLIAM GORRELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. F15-22030 and F19-33327
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 2015, in trial cause number F15-22030, a grand jury indicted Appellant

William Gorrell for aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first-degree felony. In

2016, he pleaded “guilty” pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, and the trial court

found sufficient evidence to find Gorrell guilty, but deferred adjudication of guilt,

placed Gorrell on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1,000 fine.

In 2019, in trial cause number F19-33327, a grand jury indicted Gorrell for failure

1
to comply with sex offender registration requirements, a third-degree felony. In

2020, Gorrell, pursuant to a plea bargain, pleaded guilty to failure to comply with

sex offender registration requirements, and the trial court found Gorrell guilty,

sentenced him to five years of confinement, suspended his confinement, placed him

on community supervision for five years, and assessed a $1,000 fine.

The State filed motions to revoke in both trial cause numbers, alleging four

violations of the terms of Gorrell’s community supervision in each case. At a hearing

on the motions, Gorrell pleaded “true” to two of the allegations in each case, and the

trial court found the evidence sufficient to find a third allegation true in each case.

In trial cause number F15-22030, the trial court found Gorrell guilty of aggravated

sexual assault of a child and sentenced Gorrell to twenty years in prison. In trial

cause number F19-33327, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to revoke his

community supervision and sentenced him to five years of prison. The trial court

ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Gorrell timely appealed from the

judgments.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed briefs stating that he has

reviewed the cases and, based on his professional evaluation of the records and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We

2
granted an extension of time for Gorrell to file pro se briefs, and we received no

response from Gorrell.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

records and counsel’s briefs in these cases, and we have found nothing that would

arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion

that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible

error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment

of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1

AFFIRMED.
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on June 17, 2025
Opinion Delivered June 18, 2025
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1
Gorrell may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.

3