In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
___________________
NO. 09-12-00250-CR
___________________
MARCUS EUGENE MORGAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 128th District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. A-040080-R
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Marcus Eugene Morgan pled
guilty to burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(3) (West
2011). Under the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred the
adjudication of Morgan’s guilt, placed Morgan on community supervision for ten
years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. Subsequently, the State filed a motion asking
the trial court to find Morgan guilty of burglarizing a habitation. After a hearing,
1
the trial court found Morgan guilty, entered a judgment assessing a ten-year
sentence, and imposed a $1,000 fine. However, the trial court then suspended
Morgan’s sentence and placed him on probation for ten years.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to revoke
Morgan’s probation. After a hearing on the motion to revoke, the trial court
revoked Morgan’s probation. After Morgan’s sentencing hearing, the trial court
entered a judgment requiring Morgan to serve seven years in prison and to pay a
fine of $1,000.
On appeal, Morgan’s 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). On September 6, 2012, we granted
an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se response. Morgan has not
filed a response.
We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s
conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it
unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf.
2
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial
court’s judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on December 28, 2012
Opinion Delivered February 13, 2013
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
1
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3