Court Opinion

ID: 3068752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-15 23:58:30.514717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:19:18.033985
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                               ________________

                              NO. 09-14-00254-CR
                               ________________

                   WILLIAM RUSSELL YORK, Appellant

                                        V.

                  THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 13-17280
__________________________________________________________________

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant William Russell York

pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court found the evidence sufficient

to find York guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed York on community

supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $750. The State subsequently

filed a motion to revoke York’s unadjudicated community supervision. York

pleaded “true” to four violations of the conditions of his community supervision.

The trial court found that York had violated the conditions of his community

                                        1
supervision, found York guilty of aggravated assault, and assessed punishment at

five years of confinement.

      York’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 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). On November 18, 2014, we granted an extension of time for York to file a

pro se brief. We received no response from York. 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.

                                       ________________________________
                                             STEVE McKEITHEN
                                                  Chief Justice

Submitted on February 23, 2015
Opinion Delivered March 18, 2015
Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
      1
        York may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2