Harold George Sayrie Jr. A/K/A Harold Sayrie v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-13-00170-CR
____________________
HAROLD GEORGE SAYRIE JR. A/K/A HAROLD SAYRIE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-10361
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, counsel for the appellant, Harold George Sayrie Jr. filed a
brief stating counsel found no arguable issues that would allow the court to reverse
Sayrie’s conviction. After reviewing the record, we agree that there are no arguable
issues that Sayrie could have raised to support his appeal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Sayrie pled guilty to burglary of a
habitation, a second degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(3), (c)(2)
1
(West 2011). Under the terms of Sayrie’s plea agreement, the trial court deferred
the adjudication of Sayrie’s guilt, placed Sayrie on community supervision for
seven years, and assessed a fine a $750.00.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion alleging that Sayrie had violated two
of the terms of the trial court’s community supervision order, and it asked the trial
court to revoke its order placing Sayrie on community supervision. At the
revocation hearing, Sayrie pled “true” to one of the alleged violations and “not
true” to the other. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found
both of the violations alleged in the State’s motion to revoke to be true, found
Sayrie guilty of burglarizing a habitation, and sentenced Sayrie to serve twenty
years in prison.
On appeal, Sayrie’s counsel filed a brief. The brief reflects that after counsel
evaluated the record, counsel concluded Sayrie’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders,
386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Subsequently, we invited Sayrie to file a pro se brief, and he did so.
After reviewing the appellate record, the Anders brief field by Sayrie’s
counsel, and the brief that was filed by Sayrie, we agree with counsel’s conclusion
that no arguable issues support Sayrie’s appeal. Because no arguable issues support
Sayrie’s appeal, we need not order the trial court to appoint new counsel to re-brief
2
Sayrie’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on June 27, 2014
Opinion Delivered September 3, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1
Sayrie may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3