David Wayne Disomba 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. 09-11-00037-CR _________________ DAVID WAYNE DISOMBA, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-06226 _______________________________________________________________ ___ ______ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant David Wayne Disomba pleaded guilty to burglary of a building. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Disomba on unadjudicated community supervision for four years, and assessed a fine. The State filed a motion to revoke the community supervision order. The trial court found Disomba violated the terms of the community supervision order, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to eighteen months of confinement in a state jail facility. Disomba filed this appeal. 1 Appellate counsel filed an Anders 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 April 7, 2011, we granted an extension of time for Disomba to file a pro se brief. We have not received a pro-se response from Disomba. In response to an inquiry concerning a $1000 attorney fee that appears to be unsupported on a list of administrative costs, both appellant and the State informed the Court that they agree to a reduction of that amount. The record does not support an award of attorney fees, and the judgment does not require Disomba to pay any attorney fees. We have independently reviewed the appellate record and the Anders brief in this case, and we agree with appellate counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Disomba s appeal. See id.; 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 _________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on July 11, 2011 Opinion Delivered August 10, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Disomba may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
