Court Opinion

ID: 2740602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-08 08:13:54.162184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:29.521329
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                                ________________

                               NO. 09-14-00152-CR
                                ________________

                    JAKARI RAMONE CROUT, Appellant

                                         V.

                   THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________

                On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                       Jefferson County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 09-07730
__________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Jakari Ramone Crout

pleaded guilty to injury to a child. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to

find Crout guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Crout on community

supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Crout’s

unadjudicated community supervision. Crout pleaded “true” to five violations of

the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Crout

                                         1
violated conditions of his community supervision, found Crout guilty of injury to a

child, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement.

      Crout’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 June 24, 2014, we granted an extension of time for Crout to file a pro se

brief. We received no response from Crout. We 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 October 1, 2014
Opinion Delivered October 8, 2014
Do Not Publish

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

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