David Flowers 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. 09-16-00434-CR ____________________ DAVID FLOWERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 14-19585 MEMORANDUM OPINION David Flowers (Flowers) pleaded guilty to felony burglary of a building, and he pleaded “true” to two enhancements for prior felony convictions. The trial court accepted Flowers’s pleas, and on October 8, 2014, the court found Flowers guilty and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement and a $500 fine. The court suspended imposition of the sentence of confinement and placed Flowers on community supervision for ten years. On August 10, 2016, the State filed a motion to revoke, alleging Flowers had violated three terms of his community supervision. 1 At a hearing on October 28, 2016, Flowers pleaded “true” to each of the alleged violations, the court found the evidence was sufficient that Flowers had violated three terms of his community supervision, revoked Flowers’s community supervision, and imposed punishment at ten years of confinement. Flowers timely filed a notice of appeal. Flowers’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that there are no meritorious claims for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On December 19, 2016, we granted an extension of time for Flowers to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Flowers. We have independently reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the 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 1 Flowers may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED. _________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice Submitted on March 16, 2017 Opinion Delivered March 29, 2017 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 3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.
