Damarcus Lee Sam Jr. v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00327-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-24-00327-CR ________________

DAMARCUS LEE SAM JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F22-41263 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to robbery, a

second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02. In cause number F22-

41263, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Appellant guilty of

robbery but deferred further proceedings and placed Appellant on community

supervision for five years.

1 Subsequently, prior to the expiration of the term of community supervision,

the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. In response

to this motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to violating five terms of the community

supervision order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that

the evidence was sufficient to find that Appellant violated those terms, and others,

of his community supervision. The trial court revoked Appellant’s community

supervision, found him guilty of robbery, and assessed punishment at twenty years

of confinement. Appellant’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents

counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes that the appeal is

frivolous; he also filed a motion to withdraw. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On March 11, 2025,

we notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and notified him of the May

12, 2025 deadline for doing so, but we received no response from Appellant.

We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s

judgment.1

1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1. 2 AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on June 13, 2025 Opinion Delivered June 25, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.