Joseph James Ford 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. 09-11-00165-CR _________________ JOSEPH JAMES FORD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-10049 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Joseph James Ford pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of burglary of a building. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Ford guilty, but deferred finding him guilty, and placed him on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Ford s unadjudicated community supervision. Ford pled true to one violation of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Ford violated the terms of the community supervision order, found Ford guilty of the offense of burglary of a 1 building, revoked Ford s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement. Ford 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 14, 2011, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We have 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 ___________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on October 27, 2011 Opinion Delivered November 9, 2011 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
