In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
______________________
NO. 09-07-384 CR
NO. 09-07-385 CR
______________________
VICTOR TYRONE APLON, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 87672, 88596
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Victor Tyrone Aplon pled guilty to two offenses of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(3),(c)(2) (Vernon 2003). In each case, the trial court, pursuant to a plea bargain, deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Aplon on community supervision for six years, and fined him $500. The State subsequently filed "Motion[s] to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation[.]" In each case, Aplon pled "true" to three violations of his community supervision. The trial court adjudicated his guilt in both cases and sentenced him to six years in a state jail facility in each case, with the sentences to run concurrently. Aplon appealed.
Appellate counsel filed Anders briefs concluding in both matters there are no arguable points of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Aplon filed a pro se brief in this Court. He styled the brief as a petition for extraordinary relief addressed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Aplon argues in both cases that he was never served with an indictment, he was denied a timely record on appeal, the evidence was insufficient to support his guilt, and trial counsel coerced him into a plea.
The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find 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. Having reviewed the clerk's record and reporter's record, we find no reversible error and conclude the appeal is frivolous. See id. 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).
The judgments of the trial court in cause numbers 87672 and 88596 are affirmed. (1)
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
DAVID GAULTNEY
Justice
Submitted on July 15, 2008
Opinion Delivered July 16, 2008
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
1. Aplon may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.