Opinion
No. 09-08-00368-CR
Submitted on July 29, 2009.
Opinion Delivered August 26, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 94118.
Before GAULTNEY, KREGER, and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Charles Ray Walker Jr. was indicted for assault on a public servant. Walker pled no contest pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Walker guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Walker on community supervision for four years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Walker's unadjudicated community supervision. Walker pled "true" to two of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Walker violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Walker guilty of assault on a public servant, and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. Walker then filed this appeal. Walker's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Walker filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds 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." Id. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.