Timothy Dwane Wilson 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. 09-11-00372-CR _________________ TIMOTHY DWANE WILSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 98817 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Timothy Dwane Wilson pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Wilson guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. The trial court placed Wilson on community supervision for five years and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Wilson s unadjudicated community supervision. Wilson pled true to two violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial 1 court found that Wilson violated the terms of the community supervision order, revoked Wilson s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement. Wilson 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 September 8, 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 ___________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on December 7, 2011 Opinion Delivered December 21, 2011 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
