Timothy Ray Trahan Jr. v. The State of Texas Appeal from 75th District Court of Liberty County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-16-00391-CR ________________ TIMOTHY RAY TRAHAN JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR31733 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Timothy Ray Trahan Jr. pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention with a vehicle. The trial court found Trahan guilty and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Trahan on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $7000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Trahan’s community supervision. Trahan pleaded “not true” to six violations of the terms of the community supervision order. The State then abandoned the allegation in 1 paragraph one. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Trahan violated the terms of the community supervision order, revoked Trahan’s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of five years of confinement. Trahan’s appellate counsel 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. 1978). On January 27, 2017, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. 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. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on May 2, 2017 Opinion Delivered May 31, 2017 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 1 Trahan may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 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.
