Justin Lane Metcalfe v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: June 17, 2026
• Docket: 09-26-00014-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-26-00014-CR ________________

JUSTIN LANE METCALFE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 356th District Court Hardin County, Texas Trial Cause No. 27766 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Justin Lane Metcalfe for the state jail felony

offense of possession of a controlled substance, namely methamphetamine. See Tex.

Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115. Metcalfe pleaded guilty and waived his right

to a jury trial. The trial court placed Metcalfe on deferred adjudication community

supervision for three years and assessed a $250 fine.

1 The State filed a motion to revoke Metcalfe’s deferred adjudication

community supervision, alleging that Metcalfe had violated the terms of his

community supervision. In a hearing on the motion to revoke, Metcalfe pleaded

“true” to violations of his community supervision. The trial court accepted

Metcalfe’s pleas of “true,” and after hearing evidence, the trial court revoked

Metcalfe’s deferred adjudication community supervision, found Metcalfe guilty of

the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, and sentenced

Metcalfe to two years of confinement.

Metcalfe’s appointed counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is without merit and that 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). On February 24, 2026, we

granted an extension of time for Metcalfe to file a pro se brief, and Metcalfe failed

to do so.

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

of the record of all the proceedings 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 appellate record and counsel’s brief, and we have found

nothing that would arguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by

2 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.”); see also Tapia v. State,

462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (“A plea of true, standing alone, is

sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and adjudicate

guilt.”). 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). 1 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on June 3, 2026 Opinion Delivered June 17, 2026 Do Not Publish

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

1 Metcalfe may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3