Opinion
NO. 09-11-00457-CR
01-18-2012
EDWARD KING, JR., Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 96631
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Edward King, Jr. appeals from the trial court's revocation of his community supervision and adjudication of guilt. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, King entered a plea of guilty to the offense of forgery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West 2011). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find King guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed him on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke King's unadjudicated community supervision. King pled "true" to one violation of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that King violated the conditions of his community supervision, found King guilty of forgery, and assessed punishment at 2 years of confinement in a state jail facility.
We cite to the current version of the statute.
King'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); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel's brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided King with a copy of this brief. On October 6, 2011, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. In response, King filed a pro se brief raising a number of issues on appeal.
The appellate court need 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). In these circumstances, we "may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine 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. (citations omitted).
We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree with King's appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief King's appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.
King 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.