In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-08-00366-CR
____________________
RENALDO LUIS RICHARD, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 97644
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Renaldo Luis Richard, Jr. pled guilty to unauthorized use of a vehicle. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.07 (Vernon 2003). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Richard on community supervision for four years, and assessed a $750.00 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Richard's community supervision. The motion alleged that Richard committed six violations of the terms established for his community supervision. Richard pled true to three of the violations. The trial court accepted Richard's pleas, revoked Richard's community supervision, adjudicated him guilty, and then sentenced him to two years of confinement in the state jail. Richard appealed.
Richard's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel provided Richard with a copy of the brief.
Richard then filed a pro se brief. In two appellate issues, he raises federal and state constitutional challenges in which he contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision on the basis of allegations that were not included in the State's motion to revoke.
In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Having reviewed the clerk's record, the reporter's record, counsel's brief, and appellant's pro se brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See id.; cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. (1)
AFFIRMED.
_____________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on June 16, 2009
Opinion Delivered June 24, 2009
Do Not Publish
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
1.