In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
___________________
NO. 09-13-00530-CR
NO. 09-13-00531-CR
___________________
JONATHAN LLOYD HARDIN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 02-87180, 02-87181
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In these appeals, counsel for Jonathan Lloyd Hardin, the appellant, filed
briefs stating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in his appeals from
the judgments in trial cause numbers 02-87180 and 02-87181. After reviewing the
records from the proceedings in the trial court, we agree that any appeals from the
judgments at issue would be frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967).
1
Hardin appeals from judgments that were rendered by the trial court based
on plea bargains that Hardin made with the State. In carrying out the plea
agreements, Hardin pled guilty to indictments alleging that he had committed
aggravated robberies. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011). In
each case, the trial court deferred the adjudication of Hardin’s guilt, placed Hardin
on community supervision for eight years, and assessed a $1,000 fine.
Subsequently, in each case, the State asked the trial court to revoke its community
supervision order. During the hearing on the State’s respective motions to revoke,
the trial court found Hardin had violated one of the terms that is in each of the
deferred adjudication orders governing Hardin while on community supervision.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked both of the community
supervision orders, found Hardin guilty of committing the respective aggravated
robberies alleged in the indictments, and sentenced Hardin to a twenty-five year
sentence on each case. The judgments reflect that the trial court ordered the
sentences to be served concurrently.
On appeal, Hardin’s counsel filed briefs that present counsel’s professional
evaluation of both records. In both cases, Hardin’s court-appointed appellate
counsel submitted a brief in which he contends that there are not arguable grounds
to be advanced in either of the appeals. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State,
2
573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow
Hardin to file pro se briefs. No pro se briefs were received.
We have independently reviewed the records and counsel’s briefs, and we
agree with counsel’s conclusion that any appeals of these cases would be frivolous.
Therefore, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Hardin’s
appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Because no arguable issues support Hardin’s appeals, we affirm the trial court’s
judgments. 1
AFFIRMED.
___________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on August 19, 2014
Opinion Delivered October 1, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1
Hardin may challenge our decisions in these cases by filing petitions for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3