Opinion
NO. 09-12-00443-CRNO. 09-12-00444-CRNO. 09-12-00445-CR
2013-09-25
DAVID JOSEPH BLUNT, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 11-10-11503-CR, 11-11-12306-CR, 11-12-12832-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Joseph Blunt appeals three separate judgments, each ordering a lifetime sentence to prison, with concurrent sentences. After Blunt filed notices of appeal, Blunt's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the records from each case, and the brief concludes that Blunt's appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 7, 2013, we granted an extension of time to allow Blunt to file a pro se brief. Blunt filed a response.
The record before us reflects that Blunt was charged in each case on appeal as a habitual felony offender. The indictment in Cause Number 11-10-11503-CR, which concerns an offense that occurred on or about October 22, 2011, charges Blunt with evading arrest or detention by using a motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2012). The indictment in Cause Number 11-11-12306-CR, which concerns an offense that occurred on or about November 15, 2011, also charges Blunt with evading arrest or detention by using a motor vehicle. See id. The indictment in Cause Number 11-12-12832-CR charges Blunt with jumping bail and failing to appear. See id. § 38.10(a), (f) (West 2011). Blunt pled guilty to the each of the offenses, third-degree felonies, in one plea proceeding.
Also, during the plea proceeding, Blunt pled true to the enhancement paragraphs contained in each of the indictments, exposing him in each case to a potential sentence of twenty-five years to life. See id. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2012). After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Blunt to three consecutive life sentences, ordering the sentences served concurrently.
We have reviewed the clerk's records, the reporter's records, the Anders brief filed by Blunt's counsel, and Blunt's pro se response. We agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support Blunt's appeals; consequently, we find it unnecessary to order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Because no arguable issues support Blunt's appeals, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
Blunt may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
AFFIRMED.
____________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.