Timothy Wayne Waggoner 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. 09-11-00205-CR ____________________ TIMOTHY WAYNE WAGGONER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ___________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-07560 _____________________________________________________________ _________ ________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Timothy Wayne Waggoner1 pleaded guilty to the third degree felony offense of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) in the amount of one gram or more and less than four grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ยงยง 481.102, 481.115(a),(c) (West 2010). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Waggoner on unadjudicated community supervision for three years. 1 The record reflects that Timothy Wayne Waggoner is also known as Timothy W. Waggoner. 1 Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Waggoner s community supervision. Waggoner pleaded true to four violations of his community supervision. The trial court found Waggoner violated the terms of the community supervision order, adjudicated Waggoner s guilt, and sentenced him to two years in prison. Waggoner s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief in which she concluded there are no arguable grounds of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-42, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Waggoner filed a pro se brief in response. An appellate court may determine in an Anders case either (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error ; or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have reviewed the clerk s record, the reporter s record, the Anders brief, and the pro se response in this case, and we agree with counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d. at 826-27. We find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See id. at 827; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.2 2 Waggoner may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on August 16, 2011 Opinion Delivered August 31, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 3
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.
