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)
Download as PDF
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
DRIKE A. CORMIER a/k/a DRIKE ANTHONY CORMIER
a/k/a DRIKE CORMIER, Appellant
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-10337
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.
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.
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
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
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
Submitted on April 3, 2012
Opinion Delivered April 11, 2012
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.