TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00656-CR
Ron Fuson, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 119TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. B-12-0998-SB, HONORABLE BEN WOODWARD, JUDGE PRESIDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California.1 Appellant Ron Fuson pleaded
guilty to the offense of failure to register as a sex offender.2 The district court sentenced Fuson to
five years’ imprisonment but suspended imposition of the sentence and placed him on community
supervision for a period of two years.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, alleging that Fuson had
violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by failing to make court-ordered
payments; failing to submit a statement of inability to make payments; failing to complete court-
ordered community service; failing to pay a urinalysis fee; failing to submit a written earnings and
employment statement; failing to report to his community-supervision officer; failing to pay a sex-
offender registration fee; failing to surrender himself to authorities; and failing to participate in a
1
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2
See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.102(b)(2).
court-ordered outpatient program. At the revocation hearing, Fuson pleaded true to all of the
allegations in the motion to revoke. The district court then proceeded to hear evidence, including
the testimony of Fuson’s probation officer, Marla Rich. Rich testified that Fuson missed his first
two meetings with the probation department and had subsequent difficulties satisfying his probation
requirements. Rich attributed Fuson’s lack of compliance to an alcohol addiction that, according
to Rich, Fuson had been unable to control. Fuson testified in his defense, acknowledged an
ongoing problem with alcohol, and admitted to having difficulty complying with his probation
requirements as a result. However, Fuson insisted that he could change his behavior and comply
with the requirements moving forward. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court found that
Fuson had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged, revoked his
community supervision, and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed.
Fuson’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a
brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of
Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there
are no arguable grounds to be advanced.3 Counsel has certified to the Court that he has provided a
copy of the motion and brief to Fuson, advised Fuson of his right to examine the appellate record
and file a pro se response, and supplied Fuson with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate
record.4 No pro se brief or other written response has been filed.
3
See 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).
4
See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
2
We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the
appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
The judgment revoking community supervision is affirmed.
__________________________________________
Bob Pemberton, Justice
Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field
Affirmed
Filed: October 22, 2015
Do Not Publish
3
Ron Fuson v. State
Combined Opinion