Gene Autry Hartsfield III v. The State of Texas Appeal from 1A District Court of Jasper County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00058-CR __________________ GENE AUTRY HARTSFIELD III, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 1A District Court Jasper County, Texas Trial Cause No. 12253JD __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement, appellant Gene Autry Hartsfield III1 pleaded guilty to delivery of marijuana in a drug-free zone. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hartsfield guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Hartsfield on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $2000. 1 The indictment refers to Hartsfield as “Gene Autry Hartsfield, III[,]” but the judgment refers to Hartsfield as “Gene Autry Hartsfield[.]” 1 The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hartsfield’s unadjudicated community supervision. Hartsfield pleaded “not true” to the alleged violations of the conditions of his community supervision. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Hartsfield violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Hartsfield guilty of delivery of marijuana in a drug-free zone, and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. Hartsfield’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 May 28, 2019, and July 1, 2019, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Hartsfield. 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. 2 2 Hartsfield may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on October 22, 2019 Opinion Delivered December 4, 2019 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3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.
