Lexon Joseph Faulk v. State

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-08-00161-CR ____________________

LEXON JOSEPH FAULK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 97314

---

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Lexon Joseph Faulk ⁽¹⁾ pled guilty to sexual assault of a child. On February 12, 2007, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Faulk guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Faulk on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $500. On June 7, 2007, the State filed a motion to revoke Faulk's unadjudicated community supervision. Faulk pled "true" to six violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Faulk violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Faulk guilty of sexual assault of a child, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement.

Faulk's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 2, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. ⁽²⁾

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on February 11, 2009

Opinion Delivered February 25, 2009

Do not publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

1. The indictment refers to appellant as "Lexon Joseph Faulk, Jr."

2. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.