Court Opinion

ID: 4188958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-07-24 22:18:43.602158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:02.042253
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                             ________________
                             NO. 09-17-00007-CR
                             ________________

                ROECHALLE BARRETT ROWE, Appellant

                                       V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 411th District Court
                         Polk County, Texas
                        Trial Cause No. 24,012
__________________________________________________________________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found appellant Roechalle Barrett Rowe guilty of possession of a

controlled substance and the trial judge assessed punishment at two years of

confinement and a fine of $750, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed

Rowe on community supervision for two years.

      Rowe’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.
                                            1
1978). On April 5, 2017, we granted an extension of time for Rowe to file a pro se

brief. We received no response from Rowe.

      We 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 July 6, 2017
Opinion Delivered July 19, 2017
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

      1
        Rowe may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                             2