In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-13-00037-CR
____________________
MARION LEROY JONES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 12-13376
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, counsel for the appellant filed a brief stating that there are no
arguable points of error that would allow the appellant, Marion Leroy Jones, 1 to
obtain relief from his conviction. After reviewing the record, we agree that no
arguable issues support Jones’s appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738,
744 (1967).
1
The record shows that Marion Leroy Jones is also known as Marion
“Butterball” Leroy Jones.
1
In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Jones pled guilty to robbery. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (West 2011). Under the terms of Jones’s plea
agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of Jones’s guilt, placed Jones
on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $500.
Subsequently, by motion, the State asked the trial court to revoke its
community supervision order and to find Jones guilty of robbery. After a hearing,
the trial court found that Jones violated four of the terms of the trial court’s
deferred adjudication order, found Jones guilty of robbery, and then assessed a
sentence of twenty years in prison.
On appeal, Jones’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record. The brief contains counsel’s conclusion that Jones’s
appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow Jones to file a
pro se brief. While awaiting Jones’s response, the trial court corrected a clerical
error in the judgment and removed a fine not pronounced when Jones was
sentenced. Jones did not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the appellate record and the trial court’s judgment nunc pro
tunc, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support Jones’s
appeal. Therefore, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief
2
Jones’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Because no arguable issues support Jones’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s nunc
pro tunc judgment.2
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on November 27, 2013
Opinion Delivered December 11, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
2
Jones may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3