John Mark Hammett v. The State of Texas Appeal from 221st District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ___________________ NO. 09-16-00190-CR ___________________ JOHN MARK HAMMETT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12-03-02608-CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 8, 2012, John Mark Hammett was indicted for aggravated sexual assault of a child, a first degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a), (e) (West Supp. 2016). Hammett pleaded guilty to the offense, and on November 3, 2015, the trial court entered an order of deferred adjudication, placing Hammett on community supervision for a period of seven years. On November 17, 2015, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Hammett had violated two conditions of his community supervision. On May 13, 2016, Hammett pleaded “not true” to 1 both counts in the State’s motion. After hearing evidence, the court found both violations alleged in the State’s motion to be true, adjudicated Hammett’s guilt, and sentenced him to ten years of confinement. Hammett timely filed a notice of appeal. Hammett’s appellate counsel thereafter 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 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). We granted an extension of time for Hammett to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from him. We have independently examined the entire appellate record in this matter, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice 1 Hammett may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 Submitted on March 15, 2017 Opinion Delivered November 15, 2017 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3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.
