Opinion
No. 09-09-00075-CR
Submitted on August 31, 2009.
Opinion Delivered September 23, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 97793.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Michael Joe Hammonds pled "no contest" to forgery of money, a third degree felony. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 32.21(e)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2008). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Hammonds on community supervision for five years, and assessed a $500.00 fine. The trial court also required him to serve 180 days in jail as a condition of his deferred-adjudication community supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hammonds's community supervision. The motion alleged that Hammonds committed six violations of the terms established for his community supervision. Hammonds pled true to two of the violations. The trial court accepted his pleas, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and then sentenced him to ten years of confinement. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.34(a) (Vernon 2003) (providing that imprisonment for third degree felonies may be for any term of not more than 10 years or less than two years). Hammonds appealed. Hammonds's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel provided Hammonds with a copy of the brief. Hammonds then filed a pro se brief. In three appellate issues, he complains that his counsel provided ineffective assistance at the original plea proceedings by making misrepresentations and providing improper advice. Specifically, Hammonds contends that his attorney improperly advised him to plead "no contest" without explaining that the court could sentence him to "up-front" jail time even though such a sentence was not part of Hammonds's plea bargain with the State. Hammonds also contends that his attorney failed to properly inform him of the punishment range for the offense. As a result of counsel's ineffective assistance, Hammonds contends his "no contest" plea was involuntary. Hammonds, however, did not appeal from the original plea proceedings. See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error, or (2) 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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Having reviewed the clerk's record, the reporter's record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See id.; cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.
Hammonds may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. Tex. R. App. P. 68.