Jakari Ramone Crout v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 8, 2014
• Docket: 09-14-00152-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

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STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on October 1, 2014 Opinion Delivered October 8, 2014 Do Not Publish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