Opinion
NO. 09-11-00428-CR
01-11-2012
DANIEL HENRY YOUNG, SR. A/K/A DAN HENRY YOUN( A/K/A DAN YOUNG, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 09-05698
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Daniel Henry Young, Sr. appeals from the trial court's revocation of his community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Daniel Henry Young, Sr. is also known as Dan Henry Young and Dan Young.
Young entered a plea of guilty to the offense of felony driving while intoxicated. The trial court found Young guilty, sentenced him to seven years of confinement, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed Young on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Young's community supervision. Young pled "true" to two violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Young violated the conditions of his community supervision, revoked Young's community supervision, and assessed punishment at seven years of confinement in the institutional division.
Young'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 Young with a copy of this brief. On September 29, 2011, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. In response, Young 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 Young's appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Seeid. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Young'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.
Young 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., Kreger and Horton, JJ.