1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

No. 09-18-00276-CR

____________________

CAMERON EDWARD GRUBBS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal 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 harassing 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. 2018).
2

On appeal, Grubbs’ appellate counsel filed an Anders brief presenting 

counsel’s professional evaluation of the record.2 In the brief, counsel concludes that 

no meritorious issues can be argued to support Grubbs’ appeal. After receiving the

Anders brief, we granted 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 in August 2016, a Jefferson 

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

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

based on Grubbs’ plea agreement with the State, the trial court deferred further 

proceedings, did not adjudicate Grubbs’ guilt, and placed Grubbs on community 

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-probation. In its motion, the State alleged 

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

motion described. In April 2018, the 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, the 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 the 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 

supervision 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.