Jonathan Latroy Batiste 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. 09-09-00177-CR ____________________ JONATHAN LATROY BATISTE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 98580 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Jonathan Latroy Batiste pled guilty to sexual assault. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Batiste guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Batiste on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Batiste s unadjudicated community supervision. Batiste pled true to seven violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Batiste violated the 1 conditions of his community supervision, found Batiste guilty of sexual assault, and assessed punishment at eleven years of confinement. Batiste 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 3, 2009, 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. __________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on February 9, 2010 Opinion Delivered February 17, 2010 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
