Larry Dwayne Beavers 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. 09-06-422 CR
____________________
LARRY DWAYNE BEAVERS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 90950
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Larry Dwayne Beavers pled guilty to felony theft. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Beavers guilty of felony theft, but deferred finding Beavers guilty, placed Beavers on community supervision for five years, and assessed a $500 fine. On November 23, 2005, the State filed a motion to revoke Beavers's unadjudicated community supervision. Beavers pled "true" to two of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Beavers violated two of the conditions of his community supervision, found him guilty of felony theft, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Beavers'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 January 25, 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.

 

______________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

 

Submitted on May 29, 2007

Opinion Delivered June 6, 2007

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney 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.