In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-08-00460-CR
_____________________
JERRY WILLIAMS, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B-070035-R
Jerry Williams Jr. appeals the revocation of community supervision and imposition of a seven-year sentence for the second-degree-felony offense of burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 30.02(c) (Vernon 2003). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The trial court had assessed a ten-year sentence in 2007, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed Williams on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently moved to revoke the community supervision order on twelve grounds, including allegations of the commission of three criminal offenses concerning a single victim. At the revocation hearing, the State abandoned its allegations regarding one offense, Williams pled untrue to having committed a second offense, and Williams pled true to having committed the third offense and to nine technical violations of the terms of the community supervision order alleged in the State's motion to revoke community supervision. After hearing testimony from Williams and the alleged victim of the newly commented offenses, the trial court found true only those allegations to which Williams had pled true. The trial court revoked the order for community supervision and ordered Williams to serve seven years of his sentence.
On appeal, Williams's 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 February 19, 2009, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from 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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. 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 June 1, 2009
Opinion Delivered June 24, 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Do not publish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.