Raymond James Daniel, Jr. 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. 09-11-00225-CR ____________________ RAYMOND JAMES DANIEL, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ___________________________________________________________ _________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 98556 _____________________________________________________________ ________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Raymond James Daniel, Jr. pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, namely marijuana. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Daniel guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Daniel on community supervision for three years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Daniel s unadjudicated community supervision. Daniel pleaded true to two violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Daniel had violated the conditions of his 1 community supervision, revoked Daniel s unadjudicated probation, found Daniel guilty of possession of marijuana, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. Daniel 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). 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. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on September 28, 2011 Opinion Delivered October 5, 2011 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
