Court Opinion

ID: 9449235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 07:10:09.057233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:47.517262
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals

                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

                              ________________
                               NO. 09-23-00018-CR
                              ________________

                   LEBARON MIKHAIL DAVIS, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 75th District Court
                           Liberty County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. CR29661
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      A jury found Appellant Lebaron Mikhail Davis guilty of Sexual Assault of a

Child and sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration to be probated for ten years

because this was his first felony offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(2).

      Subsequently, the State filed motions to revoke Davis’s community

supervision. Davis pleaded “true” to violating two terms of the community

supervision order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the

                                         1
evidence was sufficient in both cases to find that Davis violated the terms of his

community supervision. The trial court revoked Davis’s community supervision and

assessed punishment at six years of confinement.

      Davis’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that present counsel’s

professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See

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

Crim. App. 1978). On March 6, 2023, we granted an extension of time for Davis to

file a pro se brief, and notified him of the deadline for doing so. We received no

response from Davis.

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

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

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

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

judgment.1

      1
         Davis may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2
      AFFIRMED.

                                           ________________________________
                                                 JAY WRIGHT
                                                     Justice

Submitted on July 7, 2023
Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023
Do Not Publish

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

                                       3