Jack Blaine Glass v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-15-00082-CR
____________________
JACK BLAINE GLASS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 253rd District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR29988
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jack Blaine Glass (Glass) pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to
aggravated robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2011). The trial
court deferred the adjudication of Glass’s guilt, placed Glass on community
supervision for ten years, and assessed a $2,000 fine. Subsequently, the State filed
a motion to revoke community supervision. During the hearing on the State’s
motion to revoke, Glass pleaded “true” to some of the alleged violations of the
terms of his community supervision, and the trial court found that Glass had also
1
violated other terms of his community supervision as alleged in the motion to
revoke. Finding that Glass violated the terms of his community supervision, the
trial court revoked Glass’s community supervision, found that a deadly weapon
was used in commission of the original offense, adjudicated Glass’s guilt, and
sentenced him to twenty years in prison. Glass timely filed a notice of appeal.
Glass’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 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978). On August 6, 2015, we granted an extension of time for Glass to file a pro
se brief. Glass filed a pro se brief in response.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that we need not
address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, we may
determine that (1) “the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining
that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[]” or
that (2) “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. We have determined
that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the entire
appellate record in this matter, as well as all briefs, and we agree that no arguable
2
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.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on November 9, 2015
Opinion Delivered November 12, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
1
Glass may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3