Justin Lane Metcalfe v. the State of Texas

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.

2

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

3

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.