Opinion
NO. 09-11-00290-CR
01-25-2012
LEE ELLIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-09336
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Lee Ellis pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West 2010). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Ellis guilty, deferred further proceedings, placed Ellis on community supervision for three years, and ordered that he pay a $500 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke, requesting that the trial court revoke its decision to place Ellis on unadjudicated community supervision. Ellis pled "true" to two of the allegations that he had violated the terms of the trial court's community supervision order. During the revocation hearing, the trial court found that Ellis had violated the conditions of the trial court's community supervision order, revoked Ellis's unadjudicated community supervision, found Ellis guilty on the charge that he had possessed a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at two years in a state jail facility.
Ellis'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). Ellis filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in pro se responses filed after the defendant's counsel has filed an Anders brief. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[,]" or "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.
Having reviewed the clerk's record, the reporter's record, counsels' briefs, and Ellis's pro se brief, we agree that Ellis's appeal is frivolous. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Ellis's appeal. CompareStafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Ellis may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
AFFIRMED.
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.