Michael Dena Grogan A/K/A Michael E. Grogan v. State ( 2013 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
___________________
NO. 09-13-00056-CR
___________________
MICHAEL DENA GROGAN AKA MICHAEL E. GROGAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 11-10920
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Michael Dena Grogan1
entered a plea of no contest to the offense of theft. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §
31.03 (West Supp. 2013).2 On September 14, 2011, the trial court found Grogan
guilty of the offense of felony theft and assessed punishment at two years
1
Michael Dena Grogan is also known as Michael E. Grogan and Michelle
Grogan.
2
We cite to the current version of the statute, as the amendments do not
affect the issues set forth in this appeal.
1
confinement, probated over three years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State
subsequently filed a motion to revoke Grogan’s community supervision. Grogan
pled “not true” to violating the conditions of her community supervision. After a
hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, the trial court found that Grogan violated a
condition of her community supervision order, revoked Grogan’s community
supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail
facility.
Grogan’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided
Grogan with a copy of his brief. Grogan filed a pro se brief raising a number of
issues on appeal.
The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders
briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). In these circumstances, we “may determine that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed
the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine that arguable
2
grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel
may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citations omitted).
We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s
record, and we agree with Grogan’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues
support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment
of new counsel to re-brief Grogan’s appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.3
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on December 3, 2013
Opinion Delivered December 11, 2013
Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
3
Grogan may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3