In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-13-00164-CR
_________________
WILL HAWKINS III, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 09-05420
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Will Hawkins III entered a plea of
guilty to the offense of forgery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find
Hawkins guilty of the offense, but deferred finding him guilty, placed him on
community supervision for three years and assessed a fine of $500. The trial court
later amended the terms of Hawkins’ community supervision and extended it by
one year.
1
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hawkins’ unadjudicated
community supervision. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, Hawkins pled
“not true” to the second count in the State’s motion, a violation of his curfew,
which was a condition of his community supervision. After hearing evidence, the
trial court found the evidence sufficient to find the second count of the State’s
motion to revoke “true.” The trial court revoked Hawkins’ unadjudicated
community supervision, found Hawkins guilty of forgery, and imposed a sentence
of two years of confinement. Hawkins appeals.
Hawkins’ 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). We granted an extension of time for
Hawkins to file a pro se brief, but he did not do so.
We have independently reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with
counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal in this cause
number. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to
2
re-brief Hawkins’ appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on September 16, 2013
Opinion Delivered September 25, 2013
Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger. JJ.
1
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3