Steven John Lee v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 21, 2018
Docket09-17-00318-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Steven John Lee v. State (Steven John Lee v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steven John Lee v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________

NO. 09-17-00318-CR ____________________

STEVEN JOHN LEE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-06132 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Steven John Lee pleaded

guilty to robbery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Lee guilty, but

deferred further proceedings, placed Lee on community supervision for seven years,

assessed a fine of $750, and ordered Lee to pay $4789 in restitution. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke Lee’s unadjudicated community supervision.

Lee pleaded “true” to two violations of the conditions of his community supervision.

After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Lee had violated

four conditions of his community supervision, found Lee guilty of robbery, assessed

punishment at five years of confinement, and ordered Lee to pay restitution.

Lee’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.

1978). On November 17, 2017, we granted an extension of time for Lee to file a pro

se brief. We received no response from Lee.

We have 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STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on February 20, 2018 Opinion Delivered March 21, 2018 Do Not Publish

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

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)
High v. State
573 S.W.2d 807 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Steven John Lee v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-john-lee-v-state-texapp-2018.