Gregory Todd Hawkins a/k/a Gregory Hawkins 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. 09-10-00055-CR _________________ GREGORY TODD HAWKINS a/k/a GREGORY HAWKINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-04888 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Gregory Todd Hawkins a/k/a Gregory Hawkins pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hawkins guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Hawkins on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $250. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hawkins s unadjudicated community supervision. Hawkins pled true to three violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Hawkins violated the conditions of his community supervision, 1 found Hawkins guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement. Hawkins 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 July 15, 2010, 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. ___________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on October 15, 2010 Opinion Delivered October 27, 2010 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
