Gene Autry Hartsfield III v. State ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                        In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    __________________
    NO. 09-19-00058-CR
    __________________
    GENE AUTRY HARTSFIELD III, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    __________________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from the 1A District Court
    Jasper County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 12253JD
    __________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant Gene Autry Hartsfield III1
    pleaded guilty to delivery of marijuana in a drug-free zone. The trial court found the
    evidence sufficient to find Hartsfield guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed
    Hartsfield on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $2000.
    1
    The indictment refers to Hartsfield as “Gene Autry Hartsfield, III[,]” but the
    judgment refers to Hartsfield as “Gene Autry Hartsfield[.]”
    1
    The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hartsfield’s unadjudicated
    community supervision. Hartsfield pleaded “not true” to the alleged violations of the
    conditions of his community supervision. After conducting an evidentiary hearing,
    the trial court found that Hartsfield violated the conditions of his community
    supervision, found Hartsfield guilty of delivery of marijuana in a drug-free zone, and
    assessed punishment at ten years of confinement.
    Hartsfield’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 May 28, 2019, and July 1, 2019, we granted an extension of time for
    appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Hartsfield.
    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 appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford
    v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s
    judgment. 2
    2
    Hartsfield may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
    discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
    2
    AFFIRMED.
    ______________________________
    STEVE McKEITHEN
    Chief Justice
    Submitted on October 22, 2019
    Opinion Delivered December 4, 2019
    Do Not Publish
    Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-19-00058-CR

Filed Date: 12/4/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/4/2019