Richard Beamon, Jr. v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 25, 2009
• Docket: 09-08-00125-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-08-00125-CR

NO. 09-08-00126-CR

RICHARD BEAMON, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 83906 and 86499

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Richard Beamon, Jr. pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone. In each case, the trial court found the evidence was sufficient to find Beamon guilty, but deferred finding him guilty. In the possession of a controlled substance case, the trial court placed Beamon on community supervision for six years and assessed a fine of $1,000. In the possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone case, the trial court placed Beamon on community supervision for five years and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Beamon's unadjudicated community supervision in each case. Beamon pled "not true" in the possession of a controlled substance case to the alleged violation of the terms of his community supervision. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the alleged violation true. In the possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone case, Beamon pled "true" to the alleged violation of the terms of his community supervision. In each case, the trial court found that Beamon violated the conditions of his community supervision and found him guilty. In the possession of a controlled substance case, the trial court assessed punishment at twelve years of confinement, and in the possession of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone case, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of confinement. The court ordered that the sentences were to run concurrently.

Beamon's appellate counsel filed a brief in each case that presents counsel's professional evaluation and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On October 16, 2008, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief in each case. We received no response from the appellant. We reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgments. ⁽¹⁾

AFFIRMED.

_______________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on February 11, 2009

Opinion Delivered February 25, 2009

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.