Court Opinion

ID: 3071362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:35:21.677024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:25.114115
License: Public Domain

In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                           ____________________
                              NO. 09-13-00540-CR
                           ____________________

                     JASON DAVID WINFREE, Appellant

                                         V.

                       THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________            ______________

                   On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
                          Jefferson County, Texas
                         Trial Cause No. 10-10484
________________________________________________________             _____________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Jason David Winfree pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to the third-

degree felony offense of indecency with a child, enhanced by a prior felony

conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.11(a)(2) (West 2011); 12.42(a) (West

Supp. 2013). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, assessed a fine of $500,

and placed Winfree on unadjudicated community supervision for ten years. The

State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. Winfree pleaded “true” to

violations of his supervision. Finding Winfree violated the terms of his community

                                         1
supervision, the trial court revoked Winfree’s supervision, adjudicated his guilt,

and sentenced him to twenty years in prison.

      Winfree’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and 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). We granted an extension of time for Winfree to file a pro se

response. We received no response from Winfree.

      We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and reporter’s record to

determine whether there are arguable grounds which might support an appeal. 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). We have found none.

Therefore, it is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief

Winfree’s appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-28; compare Stafford, 813
S.W.2d at 511.

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

      AFFIRMED.
                                                   _________________________
                                                       LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                            Justice
Submitted on May 15, 2014
Opinion Delivered June 11, 2014
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
                                         2