Andre Alexandre Smith v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-13-00466-CR
____________________
ANDRE ALEXANDRE SMITH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_________________________________ ______________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 13-16032
____________________________________________ ____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Andre Alexandre Smith pleaded guilty
to burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to
substantiate Smith’s guilt, deferred further proceedings, and placed Smith on
community supervision for five years. The State later filed a motion to revoke
Smith’s community supervision, alleging two violations of the conditions of his
community supervision. Smith pleaded “true” to Count II and, after hearing
evidence, the trial court found the evidence to be sufficient to find Count I to be
1
true. The trial court found that Smith violated the conditions of his community
supervision, adjudicated Smith’s guilt for burglary of a habitation, revoked Smith’s
community supervision, and sentenced Smith to nineteen years in prison.
Smith’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record and concludes Smith’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978). We granted an extension of time for Smith to file a pro se brief, but we
received no response from Smith. We have determined that Smith’s 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 the appeal. 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.
________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on April 30, 2014
Opinion Delivered June 25, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
1
Smith may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2