Leonard George Mitchell, Jr. v. State ( 2009 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-09-00245-CR ____________________

LEONARD GEORGE MITCHELL, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 99367

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Leonard George Mitchell, Jr. ⁽¹⁾ pled guilty to robbery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Mitchell guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Mitchell on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Mitchell's unadjudicated community supervision. Mitchell pled "true" to five violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Mitchell violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Mitchell guilty of robbery, and assessed punishment at eight years of confinement.

Mitchell'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, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On August 20, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We 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. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. ⁽²⁾

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on November 24, 2009

Opinion Delivered December 2, 2009

Do not publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

1. The indictment and the judgment refer to appellant as "Leonard George Mitchell, Jr. aka Junior[.]"

2. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.