Court Opinion

ID: 3071595
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:38:03.798082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:55.431305
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-13-00259-CR
                           ____________________

                   JAMAL DAWSON CONNER, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________           ______________

                 On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
                         Jefferson County, Texas
                        Trial Cause No. 10-09185
________________________________________________________           _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Jamal Dawson Conner pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to the offense

of assault on a public servant. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b) (West

Supp. 2013). The trial court assessed punishment at ten years of confinement,

suspended the imposition of confinement, placed Conner on community

supervision for five years, and imposed a $500 fine. After the State filed a motion

                                        1
to revoke, the trial court found Conner violated terms of the community

supervision, revoked the supervision, and sentenced him to eight years in prison.

      Appellant’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record. Counsel concludes there are no arguable points of error.

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

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). This Court granted an extension of time for appellant to

file a pro se response. We received no response from appellant.

      We have reviewed the appellate record and agree with counsel’s conclusion.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). It is unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at

826-28; compare Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. The trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                   _________________________
                                                       LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                             Justice

Submitted on April 1, 2014
Opinion Delivered May 7, 2014
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
                                         2