William Russell York v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

William Russell York v. State

DecidedMarch 18, 2015

Docket09-14-00254-CR

StatusPublished

This text of William Russell York v. State (William Russell York 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

William Russell York v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________

NO. 09-14-00254-CR ________________

WILLIAM RUSSELL YORK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13-17280 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant William Russell York

pleaded guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court found the evidence sufficient

to find York guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed York on community

supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $750. The State subsequently

filed a motion to revoke York’s unadjudicated community supervision. York

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

The trial court found that York had violated the conditions of his community

1 supervision, found York guilty of aggravated assault, and assessed punishment at

five years of confinement.

York’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 18, 2014, we granted an extension of time for York to file a

pro se brief. We received no response from York. 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. Compare 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Submitted on February 23, 2015 Opinion Delivered March 18, 2015 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. 1 York 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