Willie Eugene Hardeman v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 19, 2014
• Docket: 09-13-00467-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-13-00467-CR NO. 09-13-00468-CR NO. 09-13-00469-CR ____________________

WILLIE EUGENE HARDEMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 10-10378, 10-10380, 10-10382 ________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In three separate plea bargain agreements, Willie Eugene Hardeman, 1 a

habitual offender, pleaded guilty to aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery,

and burglary of a habitation in causes numbers 10-10378, 10-10380, and 10-10382,

respectively. In each case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to

1 Willie Eugene Hardeman is referred to in the judgments as “Willie Eugene Hardeman AKA Willie E Hardeman[.]”

1 substantiate Hardeman’s guilt, deferred further proceedings, placed Hardeman on

community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $100 fine. Thereafter, the

State filed an Amended Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation. Hardeman

pleaded true to violations of the conditions of his community supervision. Finding

four of the alleged violations true in each case, the trial court granted the motions

to revoke and sentenced Hardeman in each case to seventy-five years in prison, to

be served concurrently.

Hardeman’s appellate counsel filed briefs that present counsel’s professional

evaluation of the records and conclude the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). On April 25, 2014, we granted an extension of time for Hardeman to file a

pro se brief in each case. Hardeman filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of

Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in

Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine that: (1) “the appeal is

wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record

and finds no reversible error”; or (2) “arguable grounds for appeal exist and

remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief

the issues.” Id.

2 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 of conviction.2

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on November 5, 2014 Opinion Delivered November 19, 2014 Do Not Publish

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

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