Jarvis C. Mitchell v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-09-00318-CR ____________________ JARVIS C. MITCHELL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-04555 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Jarvis C. Mitchell pled guilty to indecency with a child. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Mitchell guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Mitchell on community supervision for six years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Mitchell s unadjudicated community supervision. Mitchell pled true to four violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Mitchell violated the 1 conditions of his community supervision, found Mitchell guilty of indecency with a child, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement. Mitchell 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 September 10, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from 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HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on February 9, 2010 Opinion Delivered February 17, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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 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.
