Tommy Lee Flemon v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00474-CR
____________________
TOMMY LEE FLEMON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 11-12016
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Tommy Lee Flemon
(Flemon)1 pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense of indecency with a
child, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
1
On the judgment from which he appeals, Flemon is identified as “Tommy
Flemon AKA Tommy Lee Flemon[.]”
1
21.11(a)(1), (d) (West 2011); § 12.42(b) (West Supp. 2014)2. The trial court found
the evidence sufficient to find Flemon guilty, but deferred further proceedings and
placed Flemon on community supervision for ten years and assessed a $1,000 fine.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Flemon’s unadjudicated
community supervision. Flemon pleaded “true” to the alleged violations of the
conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Flemon
violated the conditions of his community supervision, and that Flemon was guilty
of indecency with a child. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of
confinement.
Flemon’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 January 20, 2015, we granted an extension of time for Flemon to file a
pro se brief. We received no response from Flemon. We have 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 the appointment of
2
We cite to the current version of the statute as the subsequent amendments
do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
2
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. 3
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on April 28, 2015
Opinion Delivered May 6, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
3
Flemon may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3