Drike A. Cormier a/k/a/ Drike Anthony Cormier a/k/a Drike Cormier v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (majority)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-11-00572-CR _________________ DRIKE A. CORMIER a/k/a DRIKE ANTHONY CORMIER a/k/a DRIKE CORMIER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-10337 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Drike A. Cormier, a/k/a Drike Anthony Cormier, a/k/a Drike Cormier, pled guilty to felony theft. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2011).1 The trial court assessed Cormier s punishment at two years in state jail, but then suspended Cormier s sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years. 1 We cite to the current version of the Texas Penal Code because the amendments to the cited section does not affect the outcome of this appeal. 1 Before Cormier had completed serving community supervision, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to revoke its community supervision order. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, Cormier pled true to having violated three conditions established by the trial court s community supervision order. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Cormier violated the community supervision order, revoked the community supervision order, and sentenced Cormier to serve two years in state jail. On appeal, Cormier s 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 5, 2012, we granted an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. Cormier has not filed a response. After having reviewed the appellate record, 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. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. 2 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 ___________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on April 3, 2012 Opinion Delivered April 11, 2012 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 3