Paul Al Guillory III v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ___________________ NO. 09-16-00039-CR ___________________ PAUL AL GUILLORY III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-16462 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this appeal, Paul Al Guillory III’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in which he contends that no arguable grounds can be advanced to support a decision reversing Guillory’s sexual assault of a child conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2) (West 2011). We have reviewed the record, and we agree 1 with Guillory’s counsel that no arguable issues exist to support an appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Guillory pled guilty to sexually assaulting a child. Based on Guillory’s plea, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Guillory on community supervision for ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke, arguing that Guillory had violated five conditions of the trial court’s community supervision order. In the hearing on the motion, Guillory pleaded “true” to two of the violations the State raised in its motion to revoke. Following a hearing on the State’s motion, the trial court found that Guillory had violated two of the conditions required of him under the trial court’s community-supervision order. Based on those findings, together with the evidence that Guillory had pled guilty to sexually assaulting a child, the trial court then found the evidence sufficient to prove that Guillory was guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the offense of sexual assault of a child. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sentenced Guillory to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of ten years. In connection with Guillory’s appeal, Guillory’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Guillory’s counsel concludes that no arguable errors exist to support the filing of a merits-based 2 brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After receiving the Anders brief, we granted an extension of time to allow Guillory to file a pro se response. However, he did not file a response. After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Guillory’s counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that any appeal would be frivolous. Consequently, we further conclude that no further briefing is required to dispose of Guillory’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Given our conclusion that no arguable error supports Guillory’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on August 8, 2016 Opinion Delivered June 21, 2017 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Guillory may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. 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.
