Court Opinion

ID: 3076984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:23:14.975673+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:32.782424
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________
                               NO. 09-12-00551-CR
                              _________________

                     TROY SIMON CLAYTON, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

                    On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                           Jefferson County, Texas
                          Trial Cause No. 06-99162
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Troy Simon Clayton pled guilty to

the offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court found the evidence sufficient

to find Clayton guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. The trial court placed

Clayton on community supervision for 6 years and assessed a fine of $750. The

State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Clayton’s unadjudicated community

supervision. Clayton pled “true” to two violations of the terms of his community

                                          1
supervision. The trial court found that Clayton violated the terms of the community

supervision order, found Clayton guilty of burglary of a habitation, revoked

Clayton’s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of 11 years of

confinement.

      Clayton’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 January 24, 2013, we granted an

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

the appellant.

      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
         Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
                                         2
                                              _________________________
                                                 CHARLES KREGER
                                                       Justice
Submitted on April 30, 2013
Opinion Delivered May 15, 2013
Do not publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton JJ.

                                          3