Court Opinion

ID: 3077786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:29:04.72804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:40:24.491438
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-12-00287-CR
                           ____________________

                     CHRISTOPHER GROZE, Appellant

                                        V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________           ______________

                   On Appeal from the 356th District Court
                          Hardin County, Texas
                          Trial Cause No. 18568
________________________________________________________           _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Christopher Groze pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to aggravated

robbery. The trial court found the evidence substantiated his guilt, but deferred

further proceedings and placed him on community supervision for five years. The

State subsequently filed a motion to revoke and appellant pleaded “true” to various

violations of the community supervision order. The trial court found appellant

violated these conditions, adjudicated him guilty of aggravated robbery, and

assessed punishment at twenty-two years of confinement. Appellate counsel filed a

                                        1
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 appellant to file a

pro se response. We received no response from the appellant. 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Do Not Publish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 Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

                                           2