Opinion
No. 09-08-00391-CR
Submitted on August 4, 2009.
Delivered August 12, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 96864.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Steven Johnson was indicted for indecency with a child. Johnson pled no contest pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Johnson guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Johnson on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Johnson's unadjudicated community supervision. Johnson pled "true" to one of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Johnson violated one of the conditions of his community supervision, found Johnson guilty of indecency with a child, and assessed punishment at eight years of confinement. Johnson appealed. Johnson's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief in which he concludes there are no arguable points of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders. See id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Johnson filed a pro se brief arguing (1) he had ineffective assistance of counsel at the revocation proceeding; (2) the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision; (3) his mental health concerns caused him to use drugs and the "community supervisory program . . . should have assisted with [his] drug addiction concerns[;]" and (4) the trial court's revocation of his community supervision violated his due process and equal protection rights. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find 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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Having reviewed the record, we agree the appeal is frivolous. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to rebrief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.
Johnson may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.