Calvin Jones Jr. v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00460-CR
____________________
CALVIN JONES JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B080617-R
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Calvin Jones Jr. (Jones)
pleaded guilty to the offense of felony possession of a controlled substance,
enhanced by a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §
481.117(a), (e) (West 2010); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(c)(1) (West Supp.
1
2014). 1The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Jones guilty, but
deferred further proceedings and placed Jones on community supervision for ten
years and assessed a $1,440.00 fine. The State subsequently filed its First
Amended Motion to Impose Guilt, to revoke Jones’s unadjudicated community
supervision. Jones pleaded “true” to certain alleged violations of the conditions of
his community supervision. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court
found that Jones violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Jones
guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at fifteen
years in prison.
Jones’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 March 3, 2015, and June 15, 2015, we granted an extension of time for
Jones to file a pro se brief. Jones filed a pro se Brief. The Court of Criminal
Appeals has held that an appellate court may determine that (1) “the appeal is
wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record
and finds no reversible error”; or (2) “arguable grounds for appeal exist and
1
We cite to the current version of the statute as the subsequent amendments
do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
2
remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief
the issues.” Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We have reviewed the entire appellate record, as well as all briefs, 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.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on June 4, 2015
Opinion Delivered July 29, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
2
Jones may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3