Donald Dwayne Porter v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-13-00238-CR
NO. 09-13-00239-CR
NO. 09-13-00240-CR
____________________
DONALD DWAYNE PORTER, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_________________________________ ______________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 12-13717, 12-13859, 12-14702
____________________________________________ ____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, Donald Dwayne Porter pleaded guilty
to two counts of forgery and one count of possession of a controlled substance. 1 In
each case, the trial court found Porter guilty, suspended imposition of sentence,
and placed Porter on community supervision for five years. The State later filed a
1
Porter is also referred to in the records as “Donald Dewayne Porter” and
“Donald Porter.”
1
motion to revoke Porter’s community supervision in all three cases. In each case,
Porter pleaded “true” to violating a condition of his community supervision. The
trial court found that Porter violated the conditions of his community supervision,
revoked Porter’s community supervision in each case, and sentenced Porter to two
years in state jail for the two forgery counts, and five years in prison for possession
of a controlled substance. The trial court ordered that Porter’s sentences would run
consecutively.
Porter’s appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record and conclude Porter’s appeals are frivolous. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978). Porter filed a pro se brief in response. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
has held that we 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).
Rather, we 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 remand the cause to the trial court so
that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. We have determined
that these appeals are wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the
clerk’s records and the reporter’s records, and we agree that no arguable issues
2
support the appeals. 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.
________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on December 11, 2013
Opinion Delivered January 8, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
2
Porter may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3