Cody Ray Gibson v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-10-00438-CR _________________ CODY RAY GIBSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 98646 _______________________________________________________________ ___ ______ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Cody Ray Gibson pleaded guilty to felony theft. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Gibson guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Gibson on community supervision for four years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Gibson s unadjudicated community supervision. Gibson pleaded true to three violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Gibson had violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Gibson guilty of felony theft, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. The trial court ordered that Gibson s 1 sentence was to run consecutively to his sentence in cause number 2009-378-C1from McLennan County. Gibson 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 January 20, 2011, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from 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. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on April 29, 2011 Opinion Delivered May 11, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
