John Majors v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-21-00234-CR __________________ JOHN MAJORS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 258th District Court San Jacinto County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR12,430 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION John Majors appeals his conviction for failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. We affirm. In 2018, Majors was charged by indictment for failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. § 62.102. In a 2018 plea agreement, Majors pleaded guilty to the offense and waived his right to a jury trial. The trial court found Majors guilty, deferred adjudication, and placed Majors on community supervision for five years and 1 assessed a $1000 fine. On October 10, 2018, the State filed a Motion to Adjudicate Guilt alleging Major had violated conditions of his community supervision, and the State on December 19, 2018, filed a First Amended Motion to Adjudicate Guilt. On July 3, 2019, the trial court sentenced Majors to ten years of confinement, suspended confinement, and placed Majors on community supervision for four years. On December 16, 2019, the State filed another Motion to Adjudicate Guilt, and subsequent amended motions, alleging Majors again violated the terms of his community supervision. On November 16, 2020, the State filed a Fourth Amended Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, alleging Majors committed six violations of the terms of his community supervision. At a hearing on August 6, 2021, Majors pleaded “not true” to the six allegations in the motion to revoke. The trial court heard evidence on the alleged violations, found Majors violated one of the terms of his community supervision, found him guilty of the third-degree felony offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements, and imposed punishment at two years of confinement. Majors appealed. On appeal, the court-appointed attorney for Majors filed a brief wherein the attorney stated that he has reviewed the record and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 2 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Majors to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Majors. We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record, and we agree with Appellant’s counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Appellant’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on February 9, 2022 Opinion Delivered February 23, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 1 Majors may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3