Brandon Joseph Gerard v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-06-152 CR
____________________
BRANDON JOSEPH GERARD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 94126
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Brandon Joseph Gerard was indicted for aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea bargain, Gerard pled guilty to the lesser-included offense of robbery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Gerard guilty of robbery, but deferred finding Gerard guilty, placed Gerard on community supervision for eight years, and assessed a $1000 fine. On December 6, 2005, the State filed a motion to revoke Gerard's unadjudicated community supervision. Gerard pled "true" to one of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision and "not true" to the others. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Gerard violated three of the conditions of his community supervision, found Gerard guilty of robbery, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement.

Gerard'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 February 1, 2007, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We 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.

_________________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on May 29, 2007

Opinion Delivered June 6, 2007

Do Not Publish

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.