Mark Edward Blanchette 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. 09-12-00118-CR ____________________ MARK EDWARD BLANCHETTE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-08567 _____________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Mark Edward Blanchette pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Blanchette guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Blanchette on community supervision for three years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Blanchette s unadjudicated community supervision. Blanchette pleaded true to violating two conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Blanchette violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Blanchette 1 guilty of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle, and sentenced Blanchette to two years in state jail. Blanchette s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes Blanchette s 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). Blanchette 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. We have determined that Blanchette s appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk s record and the reporter s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Blanchette s appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). However, we note that the judgment lists the statute for the offense as 38.04(a)(1) of the Penal Code, but no such section exists. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04 (West Supp. 2012). At the time of the offense, section 38.04(a), (b)(1)(B) applied 2 to the state jail felony offense of evading arrest or detention with a motor vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a) (West 2012); Act of May 27, 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., ch. 1400, § 4, 2009 Tex. Gen. Laws 4385, 4386 (current version at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(1)(B)). Accordingly, we modify the judgment to reflect the statute for the offense as 38.04(a), (b)(1)(B) of the Penal Code. We affirm the trial court s judgment as modified.1 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on September 4, 2012 Opinion Delivered September 12, 2012 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Blanchette may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 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.
