Opinion
NO. 09-11-00120-CRNO. 09-11-00121-CR
09-05-2012
CHRISTOPHER JAMES JOHNSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 09-06101 and 09-06711
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Christopher James Johnson appeals his conviction in Cause No. 09-06101 for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and his conviction in Cause No. 09-06711 for burglary of a habitation. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Johnson entered a plea of guilty to both offenses. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Johnson guilty of both offenses, but deferred finding him guilty. In Cause No. 09-06101, the trial court placed Johnson on community supervision for 5 years and assessed a fine of $500. In Cause No. 09-06711, the trial court placed Johnson on community supervision for 10 years.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Johnson's unadjudicated community supervision in both causes. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, Johnson pled "not true" to the alleged violations. After hearing evidence, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find two allegations in State's motion to revoke "true." In Cause No. 09-06101, the trial court revoked Johnson's unadjudicated community supervision, found Johnson guilty of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, and imposed a sentence of 2 years of confinement in state jail. In Cause No. 09-06711, the trial court revoked Johnson's unadjudicated community supervision, found Johnson guilty of burglary of a habitation, and imposed a sentence of 20 years of confinement. The court ordered both sentences to run concurrently.
The trial court further ordered these sentences to run concurrently with the sentence Johnson received in Cause No. 09-06011, which we do not address in this opinion.
Johnson'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). On April 5, 2012, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant.
We have independently reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal in these cause numbers. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Johnson's appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgments.
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 Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.