Earl Wayne Wilmore, Jr. 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. 09-10-00455-CR _________________ EARL WAYNE WILMORE, JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-04116 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Earl Wayne Wilmore, Jr. pled guilty to injury to a disabled individual. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Wilmore guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Wilmore on community supervision for three years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Wilmore s unadjudicated community supervision. Wilmore pled true to two violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Wilmore violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Wilmore 1 guilty of injury to a disabled individual, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. Wilmore 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 6, 2011, we granted an extension of time for Wilmore to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Wilmore. 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 rebrief 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 _________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on April 6, 2011 Opinion Delivered April 27, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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. 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.
