D'Cobien Dorsey v. the State of Texas

2026-08-19

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment revoking Dorsey's community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of aggravated robbery, and sentencing him to thirty years in prison.

D'Cobien Dorsey pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery under a plea agreement and received deferred adjudication with ten years of community supervision. The State later filed multiple motions alleging violations of Dorsey's probation terms. After a series of hearings, the trial court found several violations proven, revoked Dorsey's community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to thirty years in prison with a finding that a deadly weapon was used.

Dorsey appealed through court-appointed counsel, who filed a brief stating no arguable grounds for reversal existed. The appellate court conducted a full review of the record as required when counsel files such a brief. Finding no reversible error and no issues that could arguably support reversal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment without ordering new counsel to rebrief the case.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether sufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding of probation violations
Whether the trial court properly revoked deferred adjudication and imposed sentence
Whether any arguable grounds existed for appellate reversal

Procedural posture

Dorsey appealed from the trial court's revocation of his community supervision and resulting thirty-year sentence, with his court-appointed counsel filing an Anders brief indicating no arguable grounds for reversal.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-25-00452-CR

D’COBIEN DORSEY, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F18-29655

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted D’Cobien Dorsey for aggravated robbery. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 29.03. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Dorsey pleaded “guilty” to the

offense. The trial court found there was sufficient evidence to find Dorsey guilty,

but deferred adjudication of guilt, and placed Dorsey on community supervision for

ten years and assessed a $1,000 fine. The State filed a Motion to Revoke

Unadjudicated Probation, alleging six violations of the terms of Dorsey’s

community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, Dorsey pleaded “true” to one

of the allegations and “not true” to the other five allegations, and the trial court heard

evidence as to the five alleged violations to which Dorsey pleaded “not true.” In

addition to the alleged violation to which Dorsey pleaded “true,” the trial court found

the evidence sufficient to find three other alleged violations “true,” held the motion

to revoke in abeyance, continued Dorsey’s probation, and sentenced him to 180 days

in county jail. The State filed a First Amended Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated

Probation, alleging a new violation of Dorsey’s community supervision, and at a

hearing on the motion, Dorsey pleaded “true” to the alleged violation. The trial court

held the motion in abeyance and reset the matter for ninety days. The State filed a

Third Amended Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation, 1 alleging six additional

violations of Dorsey’s community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, Dorsey

pleaded “not true” to the six new alleged violations. After hearing evidence, the trial

court found the six new alleged violations “true,” revoked Dorsey’s community

supervision, adjudicated him guilty of aggravated robbery, made an affirmative

finding that a deadly weapon was used in the commission of the crime, and sentenced

Dorsey to thirty years of confinement. Dorsey timely appealed.

According to the appellate record, the State filed a Second Amended Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation but took no action on the motion.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief stating that he

has reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record 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

granted an extension of time for Dorsey to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Dorsey.

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

record and counsel’s brief, 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 appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON

Justice

Submitted on August 17, 2026

Opinion Delivered August 19, 2026

Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

Dorsey may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.