Court Opinion

ID: 3075287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:08:14.214399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:04:46.879399
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-12-00530-CR
                           ____________________

                   LEAMON LAQUAY OGUIN, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________           ______________

                   On Appeal from the 411th District Court
                            Polk County, Texas
                          Trial Cause No. 21570
________________________________________________________           _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Leamon Laquay Oguin pleaded no contest under a plea agreement to

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. The trial court found him

guilty, assessed punishment at seven years of confinement, suspended the

imposition of sentence, placed him on community supervision for seven years, and

imposed a $2,000.00 fine. After the State filed a motion to revoke, the trial court

found appellant violated terms of his community supervision, revoked the

supervision, and sentenced him to five years of confinement. Appellant’s counsel

                                        1
filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. Counsel

concludes there are no arguable points of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). This Court granted an extension of time for appellant to file a

pro se response. We received no response from the appellant. We have reviewed

the appellate record and agree with counsel’s conclusion. It is unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

      AFFIRMED.

                                             ________________________________
                                                     DAVID GAULTNEY
                                                           Justice

Submitted on September 16, 2013
Opinion Delivered September 25, 2013
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.

                                         2