Marcus Keith Hardin 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. 09-08-00485-CR NO. 09-08-00486-CR NO. 09-08-00487-CR ____________________ MARCUS KEITH HARDIN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 89682, 90477, and 90479 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Marcus Keith Hardin pled guilty to unauthorized use of a vehicle and two charges of burglary of a habitation. In each case, the trial court found the evidence was sufficient to find Hardin guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. In all three cases, the trial court placed Hardin on community supervision for five years and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hardin’s unadjudicated community supervision in each case. Hardin pled “true” in each case to two violations of the terms of his community supervision. In each case, the trial court found that 1 Hardin violated the conditions of his community supervision and found him guilty. In the unauthorized use of a vehicle case, the trial court assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. In each of the burglary of a habitation cases, the trial court assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement. The trial court ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently. Hardin’s appellate counsel filed a brief in each case that presents counsel’s professional evaluation 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 April 16, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief in each case. We received no response from the appellant. We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare 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_________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on August 11, 2009 Opinion Delivered August 26, 2009 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 68. 2

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.