Roechalle Barrett Rowe v. State

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-17-00007-CR ________________

ROECHALLE BARRETT ROWE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24,012 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found appellant Roechalle Barrett Rowe guilty of possession of a

controlled substance and the trial judge assessed punishment at two years of

confinement and a fine of $750, but suspended imposition of sentence and placed

Rowe on community supervision for two years.

Rowe’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 1978). On April 5, 2017, we granted an extension of time for Rowe to file a pro se

brief. We received no response from Rowe.

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion

that no arguable issues support an appeal. 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). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice

Submitted on July 6, 2017 Opinion Delivered July 19, 2017 Do Not Publish

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

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