Octave Dwayne Dies 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. 09-10-00158-CR ____________________ OCTAVE DWAYNE DIES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 98700 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Octave Dwayne Dies appeals from the trial court s revocation of his community supervision and adjudication of guilt. We affirm the trial court s judgment. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Dies entered a plea of guilty to the offense of felony theft. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยง 31.03 (West Supp. 2010).1 The trial court 1 We cite to the current version of section 31.03, even though there were amendments made in 2007 and 2009, because the subsequent amendments did not change the pertinent parts upon which the indictment relies. 1 found the evidence sufficient to find Dies guilty, but deferred the adjudication of Dies s guilt, placed him on community supervision for five years, and ordered him to pay restitution of $8,829.82. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Dies s unadjudicated community supervision. Dies pled true to five violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Dies violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Dies guilty of felony theft, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. Dies s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. 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). Counsel s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided Dies with a copy of the brief. In response, Dies filed a pro se brief, raising four issues on appeal. The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In these circumstances, we may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that [the appellate court] has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error. Or, [we] may determine 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. (citations omitted). We have independently reviewed the clerk s record and the reporter s record, and 2 we agree with Dies s appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Dies s appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on November 18, 2010 Opinion Delivered December 22, 2010 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 2 Dies may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. Tex. R. App. 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.
