Opinion
09-21-00021-CR 09-21-00022-CR
11-10-2021
KRISTOPHER STREET, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted on November 1, 2021
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 19-31569, 18-29521
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
W. SCOTT GOLEMON, CHIEF JUSTICE
Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Kristopher Street pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and burglary of a building. In cause number 19-31569, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Street guilty of possession of a controlled substance but deferred further proceedings and placed Street on community supervision for three years. In cause number 18-29521, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Street guilty of burglary of a building but 1 deferred further proceedings and placed Street on community supervision for two years.
Subsequently, the State filed motions to revoke Street's community supervision. In both cases, Street pleaded "true" to violating the terms of the community supervision order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the evidence was sufficient in both cases to find that Street violated the terms of his community supervision. In cause number 19-31569, the trial court revoked Street's community supervision, found Street guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at four years of confinement. In cause number 18-29521, the trial court revoked Street's community supervision, found Street guilty of burglary of a building, and assessed punishment at twelve months of confinement. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
Street's appellate counsel filed Anders briefs that present counsel's professional evaluation of the records and conclude the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On July 27, 2021, we granted an extension of time for Street to file pro se briefs. We received no response from Street in either case.
We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. 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). 2 We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Street may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex.R.App.P. 68.
AFFIRMED. 3