Julius Jermaine Guillory A/K/A Julino Jermai Guillory v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-12-00364-CR
____________________
JULIUS JERMAINE GUILLORY A/K/A/ JULINO JERMAI GUILLORY,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-09452
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, counsel for the appellant filed a brief stating that there are no
arguable points of error that would allow the appellant to obtain relief from his
conviction; after reviewing the record, we conclude that no arguable issues support
Julius Jermaine Guillory a/k/a Julino Jermai Guillory’s appeal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In carrying out a plea bargain agreement,
1
Guillory pled guilty to having failed to register as a sex offender in the community
where he resided or intended to reside not later than seven days after changing his
address. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 62.102(a), (b)(2) (West 2006). Under
the terms of Guillory’s plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of
Guillory’s guilt, placed Guillory on community supervision for ten years, and
assessed a fine of $500.
Subsequently, by motion, the State asked the trial court to revoke its
community supervision order and find Guillory guilty of failing to comply with sex
offender registration requirements. After a hearing, the trial court found that
Guillory violated two of the terms of the trial court’s deferred adjudication order,
found Guillory guilty of failing to comply with the sex offender registration
requirements, and then sentenced Guillory to serve ten years in prison.
On appeal, Guillory’s counsel filed a brief, which presents counsel’s
professional evaluation of the record and concludes that Guillory’s appeal is
frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Guillory to file a pro se
brief, but he did not do so.
After reviewing the appellate record, we agree with counsel’s conclusion
that no arguable issues support Guillory’s appeal. Consequently, we need not order
2
the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Guillory’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 April 30, 2013
Opinion Delivered September 4, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
1
Guillory may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3