Mack Buel 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. 09-09-00391-CR
____________________
MACK BUEL, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_____________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 95696
_____________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Mack Buel entered a plea of guilty
to misapplication of fiduciary property. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to
find Buel guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Buel on community
supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Buel’s
unadjudicated community supervision.
Buel pled “true” to one violation of the
conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Buel violated the
conditions of his community supervision, found Buel guilty of misapplication of
fiduciary property, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail
facility.
1
Buel’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). Buel filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal
Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or
pro se responses. Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) “that the appeal is
wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it 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 appointed to brief the issues. Id.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
examined the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable
issues support an appeal. See id. 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.
____________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on June 8, 2010
Opinion Delivered July 7, 2010
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., 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.
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.
