Treston Quinn Vallier 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. 09-10-00454-CR _________________ TRESTON QUINN VALLIER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 07-02028 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Treston Quinn Vallier pled guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Vallier guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Vallier on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $1000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Vallier s unadjudicated community supervision. Vallier pled true to two violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Vallier violated 1 the conditions of his community supervision, found Vallier guilty of burglary of a habitation, and assessed punishment at fifteen years of confinement. Vallier 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 December 16, 2010, we granted an extension of time for Vallier to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Vallier. 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 ________________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on April 29, 2011 Opinion Delivered May 18, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Vallier may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
