Nathan Edward Hawthorn 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. 09-08-146 CR NO. 09-08-147 CR ______________________ NATHAN EDWARD HAWTHORN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 07-01467 & 07-01468 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Nathan Edward Hawthorn pled guilty to evading detention with a motor vehicle and unauthorized use of a vehicle. In each case, the trial court found Hawthorn guilty and placed Hawthorn on community supervision for five years. On December 12, 2007, the State filed motions to revoke Hawthorn s community supervision. Hawthorn pled true to two violations of the terms of his community supervision order in each case. The trial court found that Hawthorn violated the terms of the community supervision orders, revoked 1 Hawthorn s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility in each case, with the terms to run concurrently. Hawthorn s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the records and concludes these appeals are 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 June 19, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file pro se briefs. We received no response from the appellant. We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support these appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. 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DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on September 24, 2008 Opinion Delivered October 8, 2008 Do not publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 68. 2
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.
