Opinion
No. 09-09-00041-CR
Submitted on September 21, 2009.
Opinion Delivered September 30, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 85275.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Charles Scott Hughes was indicted for aggravated assault. Hughes pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement that provided his punishment would not exceed seven years of confinement. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hughes guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Hughes on community supervision for six years, and assessed a fine of $1,500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hughes's unadjudicated community supervision. Hughes pled "true" to three of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Hughes violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Hughes guilty of aggravated assault, and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. Hughes then filed this appeal. Hughes'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). Hughes filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (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." Id. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. AFFIRMED.
The indictment and the judgment refer to appellant as "Charles Scott Hughes." However, other portions of the record indicate that appellant's name is "Scott Charles Hughes."
See Ditto v. State, 988 S.W.2d 236 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.