Jerome Ned v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-11-00051-CR ________________ JEROME NED, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-06091 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Jerome Ned pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Ned guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Ned on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Ned s unadjudicated community supervision. Ned pleaded true to three violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Ned violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Ned guilty of burglary of a habitation, and assessed punishment at twenty years in prison. 1 Ned 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 June 9, 2011, we granted an extension of time for Ned to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Ned. 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. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on September 28, 2011 Opinion Delivered October 5, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Ned may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
