Darrick L. Anderson a/k/a Darrick Lamon Anderson a/k/a Derrick Lemon Anderson 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. 09-10-00532-CR NO. 09-10-00533-CR _________________ DARRICK L. ANDERSON A/K/A DARRICK LAMON ANDERSON A/K/A DERRICK LEMON ANDERSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ ___ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 97754 and 07-00022 _______________________________________________________________ ______ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea agreements, Darrick L. Anderson pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and to felony theft. In both cause numbers, the trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him on unadjudicated community supervision for ten years. After the State filed a motion to revoke in each case, the trial court adjudicated his guilt. Anderson was sentenced to twelve years in prison for the offense of possession of a controlled substance and twelve years in prison for the offense of theft with prior felony convictions. 1 Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief in each case that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and that concludes there are no arguable grounds of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-42, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Anderson subsequently filed a pro se response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that an appellate court may determine in an Anders case 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. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In each case, we have reviewed the clerk s record, the reporter s record, and the pro se responses, and we agree with counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Id. We find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See id; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgments in trial cause number 97754 and cause number 07-00022. AFFIRMED. _________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice 2 Submitted on August 8, 2011 Opinion Delivered August 24, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 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.
