Maurice Coleman v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-08-00293-CR ____________________ MAURICE COLEMAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 07-02266 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, Maurice Coleman pled guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a first degree felony offense, and also pled true to one enhancement count. See T EX. P EN. C ODE A NN. § 22.02(a), (b)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2009). Coleman s pleas followed the State s presentation of its case to the jury. In accordance with the plea-bargain agreement, the trial court assessed Coleman s punishment at thirty years of confinement. In a pretrial hearing, trial counsel presented several written motions to the trial court, and the court made oral rulings on some of them, as disclosed in the reporter s record. See 1 T EX. R. A PP. P. 25.2(a)(2) (allowing plea-bargaining defendants to appeal certain matters). The appellate record contains the trial court s certification of Coleman s limited right to appeal. Coleman appealed. Coleman s originally appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presented counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concluded there were no arguable issues for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Coleman filed a pro se brief in response. We abated the appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel with directions to evaluate the trial court s rulings on pretrial motions, and any other potentially arguable issues. Following the supplementation of the clerk s record, Coleman s new appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738. Counsel s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting 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 Coleman with a copy of the brief. Coleman then filed a new pro se brief raising three appellate issues. Issue one asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Issues two and three complain of alleged errors that occurred in jury selection, even though Coleman pled guilty before the jury retired to consider its verdict. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has 2 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 appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Having reviewed the clerk s record, the reporter s record, counsel s brief, and appellant s pro se brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See id.; cf. 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 March 12, 2010 Opinion Delivered March 24, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Coleman may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. T EX. R. A PP. 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.