Jody James Malone v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 9th District Court of Montgomery County

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-09-00513-CR ____________________ JODY JAMES MALONE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-09-08640-CR _____________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Jody James Malone entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to two counts of second degree online solicitation of a minor under the age of fourteen. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 33.021 (c), (f) (Vernon Supp. 2009). The trial court convicted Malone and assessed punishment on both counts at twenty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. On appeal, Malone s 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 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On May 20, 2010, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. Malone did not file a response. 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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. 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CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on September 17, 2010 Opinion Delivered October 6, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.