Jacob Adam Chavez v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-13-00465-CR
____________________
JACOB ADAM CHAVEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 221st District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 12-09-09566 CR
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, court-appointed appellate counsel, who represents Jacob
Adam Chavez, submitted a brief that contends no arguable grounds can be
advanced in Chavez’s appeal. The judgment from which Chavez appeals reflects
that he was convicted of aggravated robbery. Based on our review of the record,
we agree that no arguable issues exist to support Chavez’s appeal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
1
A jury found Chavez guilty of aggravated robbery, and following the
punishment phase of his trial, found that he should serve a life sentence and pay a
$10,000 fine. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). On appeal,
Chavez’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the
record; in the brief, Chavez’s counsel concludes that Chavez’s appeal is frivolous.
See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Chavez to file a pro se brief.
Chavez filed a response.
After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief filed by Chavez’s
counsel, and Chavez’s pro se response, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that
any appeal would be frivolous. Consequently, we need not order the appointment
of new counsel to re-brief Chavez’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on October 15, 2014
Opinion Delivered December 10, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
1
Chavez may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2