Jose Antonio Cibrian 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. 09-11-00288-CR _________________ JOSE ANTONIO CIBRIAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-08166 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Jose Antonio Cibrian pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, a state jail felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ยง 481.115(b) (West 2010). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Cibrian guilty, deferred further proceedings, placed Cibrian on community supervision for three years, and ordered that he pay a $500 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke requesting that the trial court revoke its decision placing Cibrian on unadjudicated community supervision. Cibrian pled true to one violation of his community supervision. The trial court found that Cibrian violated the condition of his 1 community supervision, revoked Cibrian s unadjudicated community supervision, found Cibrian guilty of the offense of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at two years in state jail. Cibrian appealed. On appeal, Cibrian s 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 September 8, 2011, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. Cibrian has not filed a response. 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. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ___________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on December 7, 2011 Opinion Delivered December 21, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
