Steven Lewis Bernson A/K/A Steven Peralez v. State ( 2007 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

______________________ NO. 09-06-411 CR ______________________ STEVEN LEWIS BERNSON A/K/A STEVEN PERALEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 92032

---

  MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Steven Lewis Bernson a/k/a Steven Peralez pled guilty to evading arrest or detention by using a vehicle. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Bernson guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Bernson on community supervision for five years, assessed a fine of $1,000, and ordered Bernson to serve ninety days of up-front time in a state jail facility. On August 17, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Bernson's unadjudicated community supervision. Bernson pled "true" to violating two of the conditions of the community supervision order, and he pled "not true" to the other violations alleged by the State. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Bernson violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Bernson guilty of evading arrest or detention by using a vehicle, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Bernson'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). Appellant did not file a pro se brief. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on April 6, 2007

Opinion Delivered April 18, 2007

Do not publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.