Long Hoang Lam A/K/A Cuong Lam Xuan v. State ( 2008 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

______________________ NO. 09-07-341 CR ______________________

LONG HOANG LAM A/K/A CUONG LAM XUAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 99100

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Long Hoang Lam a/k/a Cuong Lam Xuan pled guilty to the second-degree felony offense of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1), (c)(2) (Vernon 2003). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Lam guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Lam on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine of $750. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Lam's unadjudicated community supervision. Lam pled "true" to two of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Lam violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Lam guilty of burglary of a habitation, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement. Lam appealed.

Lam'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). Lam filed a pro se brief, in which he argues that he did not understand the revocation proceeding. When an Anders brief and a pro se response are filed, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds 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).

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. 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. ⁽¹⁾  

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