In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-16-00430-CR
____________________
RICKY DUANE MARTINEZ, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 08-2705
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In January of 2008, Ricky Duane Martinez was indicted on a third-degree
felony count of driving while intoxicated, third or more. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§§ 49.04, 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2016).1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Martinez
pleaded guilty. In October of 2008, the trial court convicted Martinez and assessed
his punishment at eight years’ confinement, suspended imposition of sentence,
1
We cite to the current version of the statutes because subsequent
amendments do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
1
placed Martinez on community supervision for eight years, and assessed a fine of
$1,000.
In May of 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke Martinez’s community
supervision, and the State amended the motion in July of 2016. Martinez pleaded
“[n]ot true[]” to violating four conditions of his community supervision. In October
of 2016, after a revocation hearing during which the court heard testimony and
evidence, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Martinez
violated three conditions of his community supervision, revoked Martinez’s
community supervision, and imposed a sentence of four years’ confinement. After
the court certified Martinez’s right of appeal, Martinez timely filed a notice of
appeal.
Martinez’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional
evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is frivolous and there are no
meritorious claims for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High
v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time
for Martinez to file a pro se brief, and we received no response from Martinez.
We have independently reviewed the entire appellate record, and we agree
with Martinez’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal.
Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief
2
Martinez’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on July 27, 2017
Opinion Delivered August 2, 2017
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
2
Martinez may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3