In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-12-00488-CR
NO. 09-12-00489-CR
_________________
RODNEY DALE HUNT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 10-09996 and 10-09998
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Rodney Dale Hunt pled guilty in
cause number 10-09996 to the second degree felony offense of aggravated assault.
In cause number 10-09998, Hunt pled guilty to the second degree felony offense of
aggravated assault.
The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hunt guilty of both
offenses, but deferred finding him guilty, and placed him on community
1
supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hunt’s
unadjudicated community supervision in both cases. At the hearing on the motion
to revoke, Hunt pled “true” to three violations of the terms of his community
supervision in cause number 10-09996. Hunt pled “true” to six violations of the
terms of his community supervision in cause number 10-09998. In cause number
10-09996, the trial court found that Hunt violated the terms of the community
supervision order, found Hunt guilty of aggravated assault, revoked Hunt’s
community supervision, and imposed a sentence of fifteen years of confinement. In
cause number 10-09998, the trial court found that Hunt violated the terms of his
community supervision order, found Hunt guilty of aggravated assault, revoked
Hunt’s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of fifteen years of
confinement. The court ordered both sentences to run concurrently.
Hunt’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record and concludes the appeals in both cases are 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 March 21, 2013, we granted
an extension of time for appellant to file pro se briefs. We received no response
from the appellant.
2
We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s
conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal in either cause. Therefore, we
find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals.
Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We
affirm the trial court’s judgments.1
AFFIRMED.
___________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on June 21, 2013
Opinion Delivered July 10, 2013
Do not publish
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
1
Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3