Jesse Adam Brumley 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. 09-10-00356-CR _________________ JESSE ADAM BRUMLEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 99427 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION After entering into a plea-bargain agreement, Jesse Adam Brumley pled no contest to felony driving while intoxicated. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยงยง 49.04 (West 2003), 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2010).1 The trial court found Brumley guilty, assessed his punishment at ten years in prison, suspended the imposition of his sentence, placed Brumley on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. The State 1 We cite to the current version of section 49.09 even though the statute was amended in 2007, because the 2007 amendment does not affect the outcome of this appeal. 1 subsequently filed a motion to revoke Brumley s community supervision. The motion alleged that Brumley committed four violations of the terms that had been established for his community supervision. Brumley pled true to all four violations. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find all four of the counts to be true, revoked Brumley s community supervision, and assessed his punishment at ten years in prison. The trial court ordered Brumley s ten year sentence in this case, which is cause number 99427, to run concurrently with Brumley s other sentences in cause numbers 99425, 99426, and 97980. Brumley s appellate counsel filed a brief presenting counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concluding that 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). Brumley filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need 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). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds 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, the reporter s record, counsel s brief, and Brumley s pro se brief, we agree that Brumley s appeal is frivolous. See id. Therefore, 2 we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Brumley s appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. ___________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on April 11, 2011 Opinion Delivered May 11, 2011 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 2 Brumley may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. Additionally, relief in appropriate cases for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is generally available through an application for a writ of habeas corpus. See Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 814-15 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 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.
