Court Opinion

ID: 3071599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:38:05.000305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:47.448298
License: Public Domain

In The

                              Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                          ____________________
                             NO. 09-13-00460-CR
                          ____________________

                   CODY DEMAL ANDREWS, Appellant

                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________         ______________

                 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
                         Jefferson County, Texas
                        Trial Cause No. 11-12881
________________________________________________________         _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Cody Demal Andrews pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to the offense

of robbery. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (West 2011). The trial court

deferred adjudication of guilt, assessed a fine of $500, and placed Andrews on

unadjudicated community supervision for ten years. The State filed a motion to

revoke community supervision. Andrews pleaded “true” to violations of his

supervision. Finding Andrews violated the terms of his community supervision, the

                                       1
trial court revoked Andrews’s supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him

to twenty years in prison.

      Andrews’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable points of error. See

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

Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time for Andrews to file a pro se

response. We received no response from Andrews.

      We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and reporter’s record to

determine whether there are arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We have found none.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to rebrief

Andrews’s appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-28; compare Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 511.

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                   _________________________
                                                      LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                            Justice
Submitted on April 1, 2014
Opinion Delivered May 7, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
                                         2