Court Opinion

ID: 3078250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:33:18.993581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:04.269995
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              ___________________
                               NO. 09-12-00250-CR
                              ___________________

                  MARCUS EUGENE MORGAN, Appellant

                                        V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 128th District Court
                        Orange County, Texas
                     Trial Cause No. A-040080-R
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      In carrying out a plea bargain agreement, Marcus Eugene Morgan pled

guilty to burglary of a habitation. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(3) (West

2011). Under the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred the

adjudication of Morgan’s guilt, placed Morgan on community supervision for ten

years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. Subsequently, the State filed a motion asking

the trial court to find Morgan guilty of burglarizing a habitation. After a hearing,

                                         1
the trial court found Morgan guilty, entered a judgment assessing a ten-year

sentence, and imposed a $1,000 fine. However, the trial court then suspended

Morgan’s sentence and placed him on probation for ten years.

      Subsequently, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to revoke

Morgan’s probation. After a hearing on the motion to revoke, the trial court

revoked Morgan’s probation. After Morgan’s sentencing hearing, the trial court

entered a judgment requiring Morgan to serve seven years in prison and to pay a

fine of $1,000.

      On appeal, Morgan’s 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, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 6, 2012, we granted

an extension of time for the appellant to file a pro se response. Morgan has not

filed a response.

      We have 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.

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

court’s judgment.1

      AFFIRMED.

                                            ______________________________
                                                     HOLLIS HORTON
                                                         Justice

Submitted on December 28, 2012
Opinion Delivered February 13, 2013
Do Not Publish

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

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