John Pitt v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 7, 2016
• Docket: 09-16-00076-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________

NO. 09-16-00076-CR _________________

JOHN PITT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CR27837 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, John Pitt entered a plea of nolo

contendere to the offense of theft, a state jail felony. The trial court found Pitt

guilty of the charge as alleged in the indictment, sentenced Pitt to two years

confinement, but suspended his sentence and placed Pitt on community supervision

for five years and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to

revoke Pitt’s unexpired community supervision, alleging four violations of the

1 conditions of his community supervision. Pitt pled “true” to violating the four

conditions of his community supervision. After a hearing on the State’s motion to

revoke, the trial court found that Pitt violated the conditions of his community

supervision, revoked Pitt’s community supervision, and sentenced Pitt to two years

in state jail.

Pitt’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978). Counsel’s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and

concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel

provided Pitt with a copy of his Anders brief. We granted an extension of time for

Pitt to file a pro se brief, but we received no response from Pitt.

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

record, and we agree with Pitt’s appellate counsel that no arguable issues support

an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel

to re-brief Pitt’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1

1 Pitt may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED.

______________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice

Submitted on August 1, 2016 Opinion Delivered September 7, 2016 Do not publish

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.