Opinion
09-22-00030-CR
08-31-2022
KODE JAMAAL KYLE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted on August 29, 2020
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18-30322
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES KREGER Justice
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Kode Kyle pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(d). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Kyle guilty of possession of a controlled substance but deferred further proceedings and placed Kyle on community supervision for a period of ten years, with express conditions.
Subsequently, prior to the expiration of the term of community supervision, the State filed motions to revoke Kyle's community supervision. Kyle pleaded "true" to violating certain terms of the community supervision order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the evidence was sufficient to find that Kyle violated those terms of his community supervision. The trial court revoked Kyle's community supervision, found him guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at eight years of confinement.
Kyle's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; he then 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). On May 11, 2022, we notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the deadline for doing so, but we received no response from Appellant.
We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. 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.
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
AFFIRMED.