Nathan Edward Hawthorn v. State

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



______________________

NO. 09-08-146 CR

NO. 09-08-147 CR

______________________



NATHAN EDWARD HAWTHORN, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 07-01467 & 07-01468




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Nathan Edward Hawthorn pled guilty to evading detention with a motor vehicle and unauthorized use of a vehicle. In each case, the trial court found Hawthorn guilty and placed Hawthorn on community supervision for five years. On December 12, 2007, the State filed motions to revoke Hawthorn's community supervision. Hawthorn pled "true" to two violations of the terms of his community supervision order in each case. The trial court found that Hawthorn violated the terms of the community supervision orders, revoked Hawthorn's community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility in each case, with the terms to run concurrently.

Hawthorn's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the records and concludes these appeals are 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 June 19, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file pro se briefs. We received no response from the appellant.

We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support these appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. (1)

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on September 24, 2008

Opinion Delivered October 8, 2008

Do not publish



Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.