Court Opinion

ID: 3077788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:29:05.800727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:41:11.520616
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-12-00359-CR
                           ____________________

                   ANTHONY DENARD MAYO, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________            ______________

                   On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. 06-99019
________________________________________________________           _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Anthony Denard Mayo pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to robbery.

The trial court deferred further proceedings, placed Mayo on community

supervision for six years, and assessed a $750.00 fine. After the State filed a

motion to revoke, the trial court found Mayo violated one of the terms of his

community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of robbery, and assessed

punishment at twenty years in prison, along with a $10,000 fine.

                                        1
      Mayo’s appellate 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, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967);

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). This Court granted an

extension of time for Mayo to file a pro se response. We received no response

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

conclusion. It is 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).

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

      AFFIRMED.

                                              ________________________________
                                                      DAVID GAULTNEY
                                                            Justice

Submitted on March 5, 2013
Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013
Do Not Publish

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

                                          2