Jerron Edward Bolden 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. 09-10-00121-CR ____________________ JERRON EDWARD BOLDEN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-04747 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Jerron Edward Bolden pled guilty to deadly conduct. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Bolden guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Bolden on community supervision for ten years, ordered Bolden to pay restitution of $800, and assessed a fine of $750. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Bolden s unadjudicated community supervision. Bolden pled true to five violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The 1 trial court found that Bolden violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Bolden guilty of deadly conduct, and assessed punishment at six years of confinement. Bolden 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 29, 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. ________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on December 13, 2010 Opinion Delivered 22, 2010 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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 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.
