Jeremy Keith Guiy a/k/a Jeremy K. Giuy v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-09-00424-CR
NO. 09-09-00425-CR
NO. 09-09-00426-CR
NO. 09-09-00427-CR
NO. 09-09-00428-CR
_________________
JEREMY GIUY a/k/a JEREMY K. GIUY a/k/a JEREMY KEITH GUY
a/k/a JEREMY GUIY a/k/a JEREMY KEITH GIUY, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 08-04941, 08-04942, 08-05087,
08-03733 and 08-02714
______________________________________________________________
____
_______
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, Jeremy Giuy (a/k/a Jeremy K. Giuy, a/k/a
Jeremy Keith Guy, a/k/a Jeremy Guiy, a/k/a Jeremy Keith Giuy) pled guilty to the
charged offenses in each of the above-captioned causes. In all of the causes, except
appeal number 09-09-00426-CR, the trial court found Giuy guilty and assessed
1
punishment, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed Giuy on community
supervision.
In appeal number 09-09-00426-CR, the trial court found the evidence
sufficient to find Giuy guilty, but deferred finding him guilty and placed him on
community supervision. In each of the cases, the State filed a motion to revoke Giuy’s
community supervision, and the trial court revoked Giuy’s community supervision.
After adjudicating Giuy’s guilt in appeal number 09-09-00426-CR, the trial court
cumulated all of Giuy’s sentences. Giuy appealed.
Giuy’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders
requirements by representing a professional evaluation of the record that demonstrates
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807,
813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel provided Giuy with a copy of the brief.
Raising identical arguments, Giuy filed a pro se brief in each case. In his briefs,
Giuy raises various issues concerning his original guilty pleas. We also construe Giuy’s
briefs as raising a complaint about his cumulative sentences and that he received the
ineffective assistance of counsel.
In addressing an Anders brief with a pro se response, a court of appeals may only
determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that the
court has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error, or (2) that arguable grounds
for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be
2
appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). We note, however, that a defendant must challenge issues related to his original
plea proceeding when community supervision is originally imposed, not after revocation.
See Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App.
1999) (deferred
adjudication community supervision proceedings); Feagin v. State, 967 S.W.2d 417, 419
(Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (“regular” community supervision proceedings).
Having reviewed the clerk’s record, the reporter’s record, counsel’s brief, and
Giuy’s pro se briefs, we agree that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at
826-27. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to rebrief Giuy’s appeals. See id.; cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.1
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on April 12, 2010
Opinion Delivered April 21, 2010
Do Not Publish
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
1
Giuy may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for
discretionary review. TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.