Lionell Anderson AKA Lionell Anderson, Jr. v. State

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________



NO. 09-08-00365-CR

_____________________



LIONELL ANDERSON A/K/A LIONELL ANDERSON, Jr., Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 07-01012




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Lionell Anderson a/k/a Lionell Anderson, Jr. pled guilty to assault on a family member. The trial court found Anderson guilty and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Anderson on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1000 fine. On June 5, 2008, the State filed a motion to revoke Anderson's community supervision. Anderson pled "true" to three violations of the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court found that Anderson violated the terms of the community supervision order, revoked Anderson's community supervision, and imposed a sentence of ten years of confinement.

Anderson'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 March 12, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the 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. (1)

AFFIRMED.



_________________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY Justice



Submitted on September 3, 2009

Opinion Delivered September 9, 2009

Do Not Publish



Before Gaultney, 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.