Kendal Lynn Ranpy a/k/a Kendall Lynn Rampy v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-07-251 CR
____________________
KENDAL LYNN RANPY A/K/A KENDALL LYNN RAMPY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 91354
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Kendal Lynn Ranpy a/k/a Kendall Lynn Rampy pled guilty to felony theft. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Ranpy guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Ranpy on community supervision for four years, assessed a fine of $500, and ordered Ranpy to pay restitution. On January 4, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Ranpy's unadjudicated community supervision. Ranpy pled "true" to four violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Ranpy violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Ranpy guilty of felony theft, and assessed punishment at eighteen months of confinement in a state jail facility.

Ranpy's appellate 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 27, 2007, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We 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. Compare 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 February 5, 2008

Opinion Delivered February 13, 2008

Do Not Publish

 

Before Gaultney, Kreger, 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.