Brandon Lee Duong v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-11-00233-CR ____________________ BRANDON LEE DUONG, Appellant V. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________________ __ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 07-02222 ___________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Brandon Lee Duong pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Duong guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Duong on community supervision for two years, and assessed a fine of $500. After the State filed a motion to revoke, the trial court adjudicated his guilt. The trial court found that Duong had violated the conditions of his community supervision, revoked Duong s unadjudicated community supervision, found Duong guilty of aggravated assault, and assessed punishment at nineteen years in prison. 1 Duong s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable points of error. 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). Duong 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). We reviewed the clerk s record, the reporter s record, and the pro se response, 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 judgment. AFFIRMED. ______________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on December 30, 2011 Opinion Delivered January 11, 2012 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 2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.
