In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
___________________
NO. 09-12-00443-CR
NO. 09-12-00444-CR
NO. 09-12-00445-CR
___________________
DAVID JOSEPH BLUNT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 9th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 11-10-11503-CR, 11-11-12306-CR, 11-12-12832-CR
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Joseph Blunt appeals three separate judgments, each ordering a
lifetime sentence to prison, with concurrent sentences. After Blunt filed notices of
appeal, Blunt’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation
of the records from each case, and the brief concludes that Blunt’s appeals are
frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 573
1
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 7, 2013, we granted an
extension of time to allow Blunt to file a pro se brief. Blunt filed a response.
The record before us reflects that Blunt was charged in each case on appeal
as a habitual felony offender. The indictment in Cause Number 11-10-11503-CR,
which concerns an offense that occurred on or about October 22, 2011, charges
Blunt with evading arrest or detention by using a motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal
Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (West Supp. 2012). The indictment in Cause Number
11-11-12306-CR, which concerns an offense that occurred on or about November
15, 2011, also charges Blunt with evading arrest or detention by using a motor
vehicle. See id. The indictment in Cause Number 11-12-12832-CR charges Blunt
with jumping bail and failing to appear. See id. § 38.10(a), (f) (West 2011). Blunt
pled guilty to the each of the offenses, third-degree felonies, in one plea
proceeding.
Also, during the plea proceeding, Blunt pled true to the enhancement
paragraphs contained in each of the indictments, exposing him in each case to a
potential sentence of twenty-five years to life. See id. § 12.42(d) (West Supp.
2012). After a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Blunt to three
consecutive life sentences, ordering the sentences served concurrently.
2
We have reviewed the clerk’s records, the reporter’s records, the Anders
brief filed by Blunt’s counsel, and Blunt’s pro se response. We agree with
counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support Blunt’s appeals;
consequently, we find it unnecessary to order the appointment of new counsel to
re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). Because no arguable issues support Blunt’s appeals, we affirm the trial
court’s judgments. 1
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on July 16, 2013
Opinion Delivered September 25, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
1
Blunt may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3