Victor Tyrone Aplon v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ______________________ NO. 09-07-384 CR NO. 09-07-385 CR ______________________ VICTOR TYRONE APLON, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 87672, 88596 MEMORANDUM OPINION Victor Tyrone Aplon pled guilty to two offenses of burglary of a habitation. See T EX. P EN. C ODE A NN. ยง 30.02(a)(3),(c)(2) (Vernon 2003). In each case, the trial court, pursuant to a plea bargain, deferred adjudication of guilt, placed Aplon on community supervision for six years, and fined him $500. The State subsequently filed Motion[s] to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation[.] In each case, Aplon pled true to three violations of his community supervision. The trial court adjudicated his guilt in both cases and sentenced him 1 to six years in a state jail facility in each case, with the sentences to run concurrently. Aplon appealed. Appellate counsel filed Anders briefs concluding in both matters there are no arguable points of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Aplon filed a pro se brief in this Court. He styled the brief as a petition for extraordinary relief addressed to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Aplon argues in both cases that he was never served with an indictment, he was denied a timely record on appeal, the evidence was insufficient to support his guilt, and trial counsel coerced him into a plea. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error; or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Id. Having reviewed the clerk s record and reporter s record, we find no reversible error and conclude the appeal is frivolous. See id. 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). 2 The judgments of the trial court in cause numbers 87672 and 88596 are affirmed.1 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on July 15, 2008 Opinion Delivered July 16, 2008 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Aplon may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 68. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
