Robert Joseph Lejeune v. State ( 2008 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

______________________ NO. 09-07-408 CR ______________________

ROBERT JOSEPH LEJEUNE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 99269

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, ⁽¹⁾ Robert Joseph Lejeune pled guilty to state-jail-felony theft. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03 (Vernon Supp. 2007). The trial court adjudicated Lejeune guilty, but suspended the imposition of sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke probation. Lejeune pled true to two violations of his community supervision. The trial court revoked Lejeune's probation and sentenced him to twelve months of confinement. Lejeune appealed.

Lejeune's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief in which he concludes there are no arguable points of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders. See id.; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Lejeune filed a pro se brief arguing (1) the incorrect valuation of the stolen goods resulted in a jurisdictional defect, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal, and (4) that this Court should "review his appeal in the interest of justice."

In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error; or (2) 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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Having reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record, we agree the appeal is frivolous. See id. 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. ⁽²⁾

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice   

Submitted on June 10, 2008

Opinion Delivered June 25, 2008

Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

1. The agreed punishment recommendation was for an eighteen month cap on the sentence. See Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (An agreement to a punishment cap constitutes a plea bargain.)

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