Isaiah Carey 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. 09-10-00486-CR _________________ ISAIAH CAREY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 94814 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Isaiah Carey pled guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Carey guilty, but deferred finding him guilty, placed Carey on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Carey s unadjudicated community supervision. Carey pled true to four violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Carey violated the terms of the 1 community supervision order, found Carey guilty of aggravated assault, revoked Carey s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of five years of confinement. Carey 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 March 31, 2011, we granted an extension of time for Carey to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Carey. 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 ___________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on July 11, 2011 Opinion Delivered July 27, 2011 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Carey may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
