From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Al Guillory v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Jun 21, 2017
NO. 09-16-00039-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2017)

Opinion

NO. 09-16-00039-CR

06-21-2017

PAUL AL GUILLORY III, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 13-16462

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this appeal, Paul Al Guillory III's court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in which he contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a decision reversing Guillory's sexual assault of a child conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2) (West 2011). We have reviewed the record, and we agree with Guillory's counsel that no arguable issues exist to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Guillory pled guilty to sexually assaulting a child. Based on Guillory's plea, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Guillory on community supervision for ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke, arguing that Guillory had violated five conditions of the trial court's community supervision order. In the hearing on the motion, Guillory pleaded "true" to two of the violations the State raised in its motion to revoke. Following a hearing on the State's motion, the trial court found that Guillory had violated two of the conditions required of him under the trial court's community-supervision order. Based on those findings, together with the evidence that Guillory had pled guilty to sexually assaulting a child, the trial court then found the evidence sufficient to prove that Guillory was guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the offense of sexual assault of a child. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sentenced Guillory to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of ten years.

In connection with Guillory's appeal, Guillory's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Guillory's counsel concludes that no arguable errors exist to support the filing of a merits-based brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After receiving the Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Guillory to file a pro se response. However, he did not file a response.

After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Guillory's counsel, we agree with counsel's conclusion that any appeal would be frivolous. Consequently, we further conclude that no further briefing is required to dispose of Guillory's appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Given our conclusion that no arguable error supports Guillory's appeal, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Guillory may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. Tex. R. App. P. 68.

AFFIRMED.

/s/_________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice Submitted on August 8, 2016
Opinion Delivered June 21, 2017
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.


Summaries of

Al Guillory v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Jun 21, 2017
NO. 09-16-00039-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2017)
Case details for

Al Guillory v. State

Case Details

Full title:PAUL AL GUILLORY III, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Jun 21, 2017

Citations

NO. 09-16-00039-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2017)