Opinion
NO. 09-11-00540-CRNO. 09-11-00541-CRNO. 09-11-00542-CR
05-30-2012
RONALD EDWARD DEMPSEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 04-92744, 04-93103, 04-93106
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Ronald Edward Dempsey appeals from the revocation of his unadjudicated community supervision in three burglary-of-a-building offenses. He was sentenced to two years in state jail in each case. The trial court ordered one of the sentences to run consecutively to another. In the appeal from cause number 04-93103, Dempsey argues all three sentences should have run concurrently.
The Code of Criminal Procedure grants the trial court authority to order sentences to run concurrently or consecutively. The trial court's discretion is limited by section 3.03(a) of the Penal Code. Generally, the sentences will run concurrently when the accused is prosecuted in a single criminal action and is found guilty of more than one offense arising out of the same criminal episode. Dempsey argues that the trial court record shows that the offenses were prosecuted in a single action. In the record before us, the trial judge called each case separately, took the pleas of "true" or "not true" separately, revoked the community supervision separately, and sentenced Dempsey separately in each case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering one of the three sentences to run consecutively. We overrule Dempsey's issue in the appeal from trial cause number 04-93103.
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.08 (West Supp. 2011).
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 3.03 (West Supp. 2011).
Reese v. State, 305 S.W.3d 882, 885 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, no pet.) (citing Ex parte McJunkins, 954 S.W.2d 39, 40-41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997)).
See Ex parte Pharr, 897 S.W.2d 795, 796 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
In trial cause numbers 04-92744 and 04-93106, Dempsey's attorney filed Anders briefs. Dempsey then filed a pro se brief in cause 04-93106. We have reviewed the appellate records in each case. We agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. It is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
--------
The trial court's judgments in trial cause numbers 04-92744, 04-93103, and 04-93106 are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
DAVID GAULTNEY
Justice
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.