Court Opinion

ID: 9841397
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 07:09:40.219779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:50:07.888118
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              __________________

                              NO. 09-23-00091-CR
                              __________________

                      JOSE LUZ PRECIADO, Appellant

                                         V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

               On Appeal from the 359th District Court
                     Montgomery County, Texas
                   Trial Cause No. 21-08-11684-CR
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Jose Luz Preciado pleaded

guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated subsequent offense, a third-degree

felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.04. The trial court found Preciado guilty of

the offense of felony driving while intoxicated, sentenced Preciado to ten years of

confinement, and assessed a $2,000 fine, but suspended the sentence and placed

Preciado on community supervision for six years.
                                         1
      Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision,

alleging that Preciado had violated the terms and conditions of his community

supervision. Preciado pleaded “not true” to the alleged violations. After conducting

an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found all the allegations to be “true,” found the

evidence was sufficient to prove Preciado violated the terms of his community

supervision, revoked Preciado’s community supervision, and assessed punishment

at ten years of confinement.

      Preciado’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous; counsel

also filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On June 9, 2023, we

granted an extension of time for Preciado to file a pro se brief. We received no

response from Preciado.

      We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford

                                           2
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s

judgment. 1

      AFFIRMED.

                                                      W. SCOTT GOLEMON
                                                          Chief Justice

Submitted on September 13, 2023
Opinion Delivered September 20, 2023
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

      1Preciado may challenge our decision in   this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                      3