John Pitt v. State

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-16-00076-CR
_________________
JOHN PITT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 75th District Court
Liberty County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CR27837
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, John Pitt entered a plea of nolo
contendere to the offense of theft, a state jail felony. The trial court found Pitt
guilty of the charge as alleged in the indictment, sentenced Pitt to two years
confinement, but suspended his sentence and placed Pitt on community supervision
for five years and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to
revoke Pitt’s unexpired community supervision, alleging four violations of the
1
conditions of his community supervision. Pitt pled “true” to violating the four
conditions of his community supervision. After a hearing on the State’s motion to
revoke, the trial court found that Pitt violated the conditions of his community
supervision, revoked Pitt’s community supervision, and sentenced Pitt to two years
in state jail.
Pitt’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. [Panel Op.]
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 Pitt with a copy of his Anders brief. We granted an extension of time for
Pitt to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from Pitt.
We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s
record, and we agree with Pitt’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues support
an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel
to re-brief Pitt’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1
1
Pitt may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
2
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on August 1, 2016
Opinion Delivered September 7, 2016
Do not publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
3