Legal Research AI

Seth Rion Martin v. State

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date filed: 2009-02-18
Citations:
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________



NO. 09-08-00340-CR

____________________



SETH RION MARTIN, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 07-00593




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Seth Rion Martin pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. On July 30, 2007, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Martin guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Martin on community supervision for four years, and assessed a fine of $500. On November 20, 2007, the State filed a motion to revoke Martin's unadjudicated community supervision. Martin pled "true" to one violation of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Martin violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Martin guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement.

Martin'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 October 2, 2008, we granted an extension of time for 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. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. (1)

AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice



Submitted on February 11, 2009

Opinion Delivered February 18, 2009

Do Not Publish



Before McKeithen, C.J., 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.