In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-07-012 CR
____________________
DERRICK DEMOND GUILBEAUX, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 92799
Derrick Demond Guilbeaux appeals the trial court's judgment revoking his community supervision and sentencing him to ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. We affirm.
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Guilbeaux pled guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Guilbeaux guilty, but deferred further proceedings, and placed Guilbeaux on community supervision for five years. The State filed a motion to revoke Guilbeaux's unadjudicated community supervision. Guilbeaux pled "true" to two of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found Guilbeaux guilty of burglary of a habitation; sentenced him to ten years in prison; suspended the imposition of the sentence; placed him on community supervision for ten years; and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. Guilbeaux pled "not true" to the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found Guilbeaux violated the terms of his community supervision and sentenced him to ten years in prison. Guilbeaux filed a timely pro se notice of appeal.
Guilbeaux'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). Guilbeaux then filed a pro se brief. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error"; or (2) "that 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 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. (1)
AFFIRMED.
__________________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on June 15, 2007
Opinion Delivered December 19, 2007
Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.