Jovan Neveaux v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 2, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00160-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00160-CR NO. 09-22-00161-CR __________________

JOVAN NEVEAUX, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 18-29090, 18-29093 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jovan Neveaux appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery in

trial court cause numbers 18-29090 and 18-29093.1 In both cases,

Neveaux reached a plea agreement with the State. He agreed to plead

guilty to aggravated robbery in exchange for the State recommending

1See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (Aggravated Robbery).

1 that the trial court defer the adjudication of his guilt. Relying on that

agreement, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Neveaux

guilty of the offenses and then signed orders of deferred adjudication,

which in each of Neveaux’s cases placed him on community-supervision

for a period of ten years.

Less than a year later, the State filed motions alleging that

Neveaux had violated several of the conditions he was required to follow

to remain on community supervision and avoid the adjudication of his

guilt. The State asked the trial court to conduct a hearing and decide

whether the orders placing Neveaux on probation should be revoked.

In May 2022, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on

the motions to revoke. During the hearing, Neveaux told the trial court

that the State’s allegations claiming he had violated the requirements of

his deferred adjudication order were not true. When the hearing ended,

however, the trial court found that two of the allegations, which were

identical in the motions in both cases, to be true: (1) that Neveaux

committed a felony offense while he was on community supervision in

violation of a term that is in each of the orders; and (2) that Neveaux

2 failed to perform the number of community service restitution hours the

court required of him in each of the orders.

After the trial court signed the judgment adjudicating Neveaux’s

guilt, Neveaux appealed. Neveaux’s court-appointed attorney discharged

his responsibilities to Neveaux by filing Anders briefs in the appeals. 2

In the briefs, Neveaux’s attorney represents there are no arguable

reversible errors to be addressed in Neveaux’s appeals. The briefs the

attorney filed contain a professional evaluation of the records and explain

why, under the records in Neveaux’s cases, no arguable issues exist to

reverse the trial court’s judgments.3 Neveaux’s attorney represented that

he sent Neveaux a copy of the briefs, and he explained to Neveaux how

he could arrange to request a copy of the appellate record. When the brief

was filed, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified Neveaux, by

letter, that he could file a pro se brief or response with the court on or

before October 4, 2022. Neveaux, however, failed to respond.

When an attorney files an Anders brief, we are required to

independently examine the record and determine whether the attorney

2See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). 3See id.

3 assigned to represent the defendant has a non-frivolous argument that

would support the appeal. 4 After reviewing the records in both appeals,

we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable grounds exist to

support the appeals. 5 Thus, it follows the appeals are frivolous.6 For that

reason, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to

re-brief the appeal. 7 The trial court’s judgments in cause numbers 18-

29090 and 18-29093 are affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice

Submitted on July 26, 2023 Opinion Delivered August 2, 2023 Do Not Publish

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

4Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at

744). 5SeeBledsoe 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 none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”). 6Id. at 826. 7See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Neveaux may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 4