Nathaniel Harmon v. State ( 2009 )

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-08-00094-CR NO. 09-08-00095-CR NO. 09-08-00096-CR ____________________

NATHANIEL HARMON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 86565, 91848 and 92716

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Nathaniel Harmon ⁽¹⁾ pled guilty to aggravated assault and two charges of possession of a controlled substance. In each case, the trial court found the evidence was sufficient to find Harmon guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. In the aggravated assault case, the court placed Harmon on community supervision for five years and assessed a fine of $750, and in each of the possession of a controlled substance cases, the trial court placed Harmon on community supervision for two years and assessed a fine of $100. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Harmon's unadjudicated community supervision in each case. Harmon pled "true" in each case to four violations of the terms of his community supervision. In each case, the trial court found that Harmon violated the conditions of his community supervision and found him guilty. In the aggravated assault case, the trial court assessed punishment at five years of confinement. In the state-jail felony possession of a controlled substance case, the trial court assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. In the third-degree felony possession of a controlled substance case, the trial court assessed punishment at two years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. The trial court ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently.

Harmon's appellate counsel filed a brief in each case that presents counsel's professional evaluation 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 October 2, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief in each case. We received no response from the appellant. We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgments. ⁽²⁾

AFFIRMED.

____________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on February 11, 2009

Opinion Delivered February 25, 2009

Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

1. In appeal number 09-08-00094-CR, the indictment and the judgment refer to appellant as "Nathaniel 'Russell' Harmon[.]" In appeal number 09-08-00096-CR, the judgment refers to appellant as "Nathaniel 'Russell' Harmon[.]"

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