Court Opinion

ID: 3078227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:33:08.759988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:34:22.213628
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              ___________________

                               NO. 09-12-00256-CR
                              ___________________

     ARTHUR JAY GRAY JR. A/K/A ARTHUR JAY GRAY, Appellant

                                        V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_________________________________________________________________ _

                On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 12-13328
_________________________________________________________________ _

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Arthur Jay Gray Jr. a/k/a

Arthur Jay Gray pleaded guilty to felony theft with prior theft convictions. The

trial court found Gray guilty and assessed punishment at two years of confinement

in a state jail facility and a fine of $1000, then suspended imposition of sentence,

placed Gray on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of

$1000.   The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Gray’s community

                                         1
supervision. Gray pleaded “true” to one violation of the terms of the community

supervision order.    The trial court found that Gray violated the terms of the

community supervision order, revoked Gray’s community supervision, and

imposed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

        Gray’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, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).            On October 25, 2012, we granted an

extension of time for gray to file a pro se brief. We received no response from

Gray.

        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. Compare

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

court’s judgment.1

        AFFIRMED.

        1
       Gray may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary
review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                          2
                                           ______________________________
                                                  STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                      Chief Justice

Submitted on February 6, 2013
Opinion Delivered February 20, 2013
Do Not Publish

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

                                       3