Rodney Dale Hunt v. State

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