Earnest LeBouff 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. 09-10-00549-CR ________________ EARNEST LEBOUFF, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-06178 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Earnest Lebouff pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Lebouff guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Lebouff on community supervision for six years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Lebouff s unadjudicated community supervision. Lebouff pleaded true to one violation of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Lebouff had violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Lebouff guilty of aggravated assault, and assessed punishment at five years of confinement. 1 Lebouff 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. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on April 29, 2011 Opinion Delivered May 11, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
