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. 09-10-00357-CR _________________ JESSE ADAM BRUMLEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 97980 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION After entering into a plea-bargain agreement, Jesse Adam Brumley pled no contest to aggravated assault on a public servant. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยง 22.02 (West Supp. 2010).1 In accordance with the plea-bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of Brumley s guilt, placed Brumley on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1000 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Brumley s 1 We cite to the current version of section 22.02 even though the statute was amended in 2009, because the 2009 amendment does not affect the outcome of this appeal. 1 unadjudicated 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 accepted Brumley s pleas, found the evidence sufficient to find all four of the counts to be true, revoked Brumley s unadjudicated community supervision, found Brumley guilty, and then sentenced Brumley to thirty-five years in prison. 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, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Brumley s appeal. 2 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.
