Opinion
NO. 09-13-00170-CR
09-03-2014
HAROLD GEORGE SAYRIE JR. A/K/A HAROLD SAYRIE, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-10361
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, counsel for the appellant, Harold George Sayrie Jr. filed a brief stating counsel found no arguable issues that would allow the court to reverse Sayrie's conviction. After reviewing the record, we agree that there are no arguable issues that Sayrie could have raised to support his appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Sayrie pled guilty to burglary of a habitation, a second degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(3), (c)(2) (West 2011). Under the terms of Sayrie's plea agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of Sayrie's guilt, placed Sayrie on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine a $750.00.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion alleging that Sayrie had violated two of the terms of the trial court's community supervision order, and it asked the trial court to revoke its order placing Sayrie on community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Sayrie pled "true" to one of the alleged violations and "not true" to the other. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found both of the violations alleged in the State's motion to revoke to be true, found Sayrie guilty of burglarizing a habitation, and sentenced Sayrie to serve twenty years in prison.
On appeal, Sayrie's counsel filed a brief. The brief reflects that after counsel evaluated the record, counsel concluded Sayrie's appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Subsequently, we invited Sayrie to file a pro se brief, and he did so.
After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief field by Sayrie's counsel, and the brief that was filed by Sayrie, we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support Sayrie's appeal. Because no arguable issues support Sayrie's appeal, we need not order the trial court to appoint new counsel to re-brief Sayrie's appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Sayrie may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on June 27, 2014
Opinion Delivered September 3, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.