Opinion
NO. 09-12-00364-CR
09-04-2013
JULIUS JERMAINE GUILLORY A/K/A/ JULINO JERMAI GUILLORY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-09452
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, counsel for the appellant filed a brief stating that there are no arguable points of error that would allow the appellant to obtain relief from his conviction; after reviewing the record, we conclude that no arguable issues support Julius Jermaine Guillory a/k/a Julino Jermai Guillory's appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Guillory pled guilty to having failed to register as a sex offender in the community where he resided or intended to reside not later than seven days after changing his address. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(a), (b)(2) (West 2006). Under the terms of Guillory's plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of Guillory's guilt, placed Guillory on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $500.
Subsequently, by motion, the State asked the trial court to revoke its community supervision order and find Guillory guilty of failing to comply with sex offender registration requirements. After a hearing, the trial court found that Guillory violated two of the terms of the trial court's deferred adjudication order, found Guillory guilty of failing to comply with the sex offender registration requirements, and then sentenced Guillory to serve ten years in prison.
On appeal, Guillory's counsel filed a brief, which presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes that Guillory's appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Guillory to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so.
After reviewing the appellate record, we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support Guillory's appeal. Consequently, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Guillory's appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Guillory 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Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.