From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawkins v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Sep 25, 2013
NO. 09-13-00164-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 25, 2013)

Opinion

NO. 09-13-00164-CR

2013-09-25

WILL HAWKINS III, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 09-05420


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Will Hawkins III entered a plea of guilty to the offense of forgery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hawkins guilty of the offense, but deferred finding him guilty, placed him on community supervision for three years and assessed a fine of $500. The trial court later amended the terms of Hawkins' community supervision and extended it by one year.

The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hawkins' unadjudicated community supervision. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, Hawkins pled "not true" to the second count in the State's motion, a violation of his curfew, which was a condition of his community supervision. After hearing evidence, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find the second count of the State's motion to revoke "true." The trial court revoked Hawkins' unadjudicated community supervision, found Hawkins guilty of forgery, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement. Hawkins appeals.

Hawkins' 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). We granted an extension of time for Hawkins to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so.

We have independently reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal in this cause number. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Hawkins' appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

AFFIRMED.

___________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice
Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger. JJ.


Summaries of

Hawkins v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Sep 25, 2013
NO. 09-13-00164-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 25, 2013)
Case details for

Hawkins v. State

Case Details

Full title:WILL HAWKINS III, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Sep 25, 2013

Citations

NO. 09-13-00164-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 25, 2013)