Gerald Lowell Castille 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. 09-06-487 CR
______________________
GERALD LOWELL CASTILLE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 95156
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Gerald Lowell Castille pled guilty to aggravated robbery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Castille guilty of aggravated robbery, but deferred finding Castille guilty, placed him on community supervision for ten years, ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $50, and assessed a $1600 fine. On February 13, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Castille's unadjudicated community supervision. Castille pled "true" to two of the alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Castille violated two of the conditions of his community supervision, found him guilty of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at twenty-five years of confinement.

Castille'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.

_________________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on May 29, 2007

Opinion Delivered June 6, 2007

Do not publish

 

Before Gaultney, 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.