1 In The


### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________
No . 09

- 18

- 00 276

- CR



### ____________________
CAMERON EDWARD GRUBBS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No

. 16

- 25542

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this appeal, Cameron Edward Grubbs ’ court

- appointed appellate counsel

submitted a brief in which counsel contends that no arguable grounds can be

advanced to support Grubbs’ appeal from his conviction for harass ing a public

servant. 1 Based on our review of the record, we agree that no arguable issues exist

to support Grubbs’ appeal

.

1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.11 (a) (3) (West Supp. 201 8 ).2 On appeal, Grubbs’ appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting

counsel’s profess ional evaluation of the record. 2 In the brief, counsel concludes t hat

no meritor ious issues can be argued to support Grubbs’ appeal

. After receiving the

Anders brief, we grante d an extension of time so that Grubbs could file a pro se

response. However, Grubbs did not file one.

The record from the court below shows that i n August 2016

, a Jefferson

County Grand Jury indicted Grubbs for harass ing a public servant. 3 In September

2016, Grubbs judicially admitted that he was guilty of the offense. In October 2016,

b ased on Grubbs’ plea agreement with the State

, t he trial court deferred further

proceedings

, did not adjudicat e Grubbs’ guilt

, and placed Grubbs on commu nity

supervision for five years.

In February 2018

, the State filed a motion to revoke the order the trial court

used to place Grubbs on unadjudicated

- probati on

. In its motion, the State alleged

that Grubbs had violated the conditions of the order in six ways , which the State’s

motion describe d

. In April 2018, t he trial court conducted a hearing so Grubbs could

2 See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) ; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

3 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.11 (a) (3).3 present his pleas to the allegations in the State’s motion to revoke

. During the April

hearing, Grubbs pleaded “true” to two of the violations of the order based on the

allegations in the State’s motion

.
Approximately two months later , the trial court conducted an evidentiary

hearing on the motion to revoke

. 4 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court

found that Grubbs had violated the conditions of the court’s deferred

- adjudication

order on a total of five grounds

, which included the grounds relevant to the ones on

which Grubbs pleaded true . After finding five of the violations to be true, the trial

court pronounced Grubbs guilty of harassing a public servant

. The trial court then

sentenced Grubbs to prison for four years

. 5

After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief filed by Grubbs’

counsel, we agree with counsel’ s conclusion that any appeal would be without

4 In the hearing, t he State abandoned one of the grounds on which it claimed that Grubbs had violated the conditions of the court’s deferred

- adjudication order.

5 A conviction for harassing a public servant is a third

- degree felony

. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.11(b) (West Supp. 2018 ).4 merit

. 6 Thus

, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re

- brief Grubbs’

appeal. 7 Because Grubbs’ appeal is frivolous , we affirm t he trial court’s judgment

. 8

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on November 21 , 2018 Opinion Delivered March 13, 2019 Do Not Publish

Before Kreger , Horton and Johnson

, JJ.

6 See Tapia v. State , 462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (“A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervi sion and adjudicate guilt.”).

7 Cf. Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring court appointment of other counsel only if it is determined arguable grounds exist to support the appeal).

8 Grubbs may challenge our decision in the case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.