Gasani Paul Bernard v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 09-24-00012-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00012-CR __________________

GASANI PAUL BERNARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F20-33999 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Gasani Paul Bernard for aggravated robbery,

a first-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03. Pursuant to a plea bargain

capping Bernard’s punishment at eighteen years of confinement, Bernard pleaded

“guilty” to the offense. The trial court signed an Order of Deferred Adjudication as

to guilt, placed Bernard on community supervision for ten years, ordered Bernard to

pay $2,000 in restitution, and assessed a $1,000 fine.

1 The State filed a motion to revoke Bernard’s community supervision, alleging

seven violations of the terms of his community supervision. At a hearing on the

motion, Bernard pleaded “true” to the allegations. The trial court found the evidence

sufficient to find the allegations true, revoked Bernard’s community supervision,

found Bernard guilty of the offense of aggravated robbery, made an affirmative

finding that a deadly weapon was used, and sentenced Bernard to twenty years of

confinement. Bernard timely filed his appeal.

On appeal, Appellant’s court-ordered attorney filed a brief stating that he has

reviewed the case and, based on his professional evaluation of the record and

applicable law, there are no arguable grounds for reversal. 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 Bernard to file a pro se brief, and we received no

response from Bernard.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record and counsel’s brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support

an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)

(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered

the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found

2 none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). 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

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on August 21, 2024 Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1 Bernard may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3