The opinion
<^ /066*/5 ORIGINAL
.Xai IHE Nmry Cntjcn- of Appeals
m^ty-^ooM-6-Qih3P^ ^__^ _
^ECE/ued \U
RECEIVED CMymTn^sUa.t Appellant ^^^^mALappeal
OCT 2 6 2015 i/ '/ OCT 3O|0f5
CAROL ANNE HARLEY
Tub State, of ieaas Appellee
' •// ' •**»»* wsia,uei
DuiJfaDEALJpJBQJbL-LtiE^
163RPJDimSLCTAlL
Tbki Caikp fa Ro<?Of,t7~R
fyfEU^^ For PMerriomY %MSappeals
Abel Acosta, Clerk
CafiAFS yow Calvin CIc^nes Jr^ -oy ~ntE. ABOVE. Entitled WD
(TURisDitTiONOVERMiS WDEALMDlH SuWORT VJouuD SHOW THE
(louRJLJT^E^BoiJU^lNaA __
^Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel.
fjgf? Repg£sarmr/oM was oeficasnt, Ms. Roger's deficient P&t-
FOR/MUTE AFFECTED CpRBTVDlCED^ TUB. OUTCOME OF NW CAf)E^_
fwyrnim gutuF TWRl-E were f See Pacje nlo.'/q une ia-ao of 'THE
^R^po^T£JllS_R£CnfLD!JVQUjME &GF3. l\hs. RcxjERS STOOD RV Mcrnhk
i.FSfi ns TUOUQU SUE WAS^lMOtiUEQEMT AND> \HOr)t\AQET^i\rr. SbE
UWVL^ZNADDmOM Ms. RncjEBG- EpRED-^MaOE F.f?Qna» G&E TMcrflflrS
Sl^SmrrE; j? &W, 3D. <?o&t VIZ, <2i3 ClezA, Ctf/M ftpp. iW<l).
&round For Review Mu/^rFI? ~Twa
tT~/yn icmsjj f=nt
^E^STATE^Fa1leoto__us^^
)qOQ "fUltoMrFME-rtT- OUBrxn^tt'' WLllfill /«n TO (Mil auJFUL. ^FhttMO
Ground^Eoju2e\/JewJ^umqer^ree.
MtOUrriON Of fooQTEEHTU Am£NDM&JT DUE f)?nf>r<=ft
Ex mRtel tiaRRfc sr^ 5,W m <?** (t^k. Cr/m Add, mm. Ma CJZnE?
"aulurry puEf{" was MVouuttrnM because Ms. Rocjeos WAshEFPECrivB
Ms, KOREAS dip ucrr cioNSULsr vjrnj defbhdant; piQ NOT Map'lRE A3 TO
det&mmim&Jeji^bn&mec^^^
?>tvod pss Mr.'^Zaies PLE&DquiLrry.
.__ Ground For Res/'iEW Number FvuR ^ __
.„ Plea BaR^Mti Agreement "l/'-
JELk p&n& Dm%.t c>io S, U/. sip -yes- (lex. Cgi'm App iG9i). Mr. Jones
PLE&J&mailJ AcjREE/VlEMT WAS TNVQLUNTARv" BASED ON TUB FMCTf
U-ie &OIL.TY PLeA WAS "iNVQWMTAR/' SINCE ttis PtTTORNEV. M$. f?ojER€
WAG INEFFECTIVE. Afe. RojEftS WAS ESSENTIALLY ZTVST A Gop-G/T
MAN WUQ WAG PRESENT WITH MRdoNES WHEN HE PLEADED QiJt TO
fl "NOME pRE-AflRAfCjMEQL DEAL. BETWEEN M°M Aa/O TUE STATE. AlojE
^/ksgArr/A/g opinio$ erring Ex pA/tTE Harris 5~<?6 S.W* aq «y%3 lTex.
Crj'm, App- two aaio Ex parte Bratcmett. s~i3 S.W. aavs-i (~Tkx~
C&m.App^m42_ ______^__
flggjW" ^ Rf=tftEW NiJMRF.R F'l/E _____
^EuGUFFLCJlENrT ELviOEHOE
Xn the Cjdurt Reporter's Record Volume ll Pqqf £; Lines iC-Tam-
If the Court was ABAfifoohfiha awtv/a/g tin /or about $uj£n f^isrf. jpub
\&m . "Tf/g CjQURT AGREED, BUT" W14EN LOOK\NQ AT THE TJuO^E/VjEhrT
AcfJVDJcJEr/NO GuJLrr' otf RECORD F&QM THE CodAiry CjlERKS OFFICE
MR. OoME^ THE DEFENDAT WAS CMARQED^ Wiry PtetfESfiloN OF ACog
TAoujEJ^jeuesrmtE^To^
vJE.lQhtT tUrcxJOlMQ AdUL.TBf>^(jryi AMD Uilut%mts_ of less than &$ ^RAN&r
ONoHAGOUT H&RUWy 1%SL0i3i in GfWiQE G>umtV, 1ejCA% liji.5 IS ABSOLUTE
Ly False Gee Uaclk^o^ \t Wfow/V mi U.S. 3cnJ <?<? Gcxanv\
(mo)r H'jQTADQ V Tucker, vo F'Gupp ad ui (Nines /<?<??) _
L GenuMD For /?a/jgw MuMRFR Six ____ _^
3~AJFfrFECTJ\/E Ae5i5TAML^.0FCoUA/5£i
{\ppEf\L- Atto/?a/e/- Christine Brown-zeto
yMs, CjjRisTJNFi Brown-^EToATrnRHEy at Law i/qt &&fem
CbLA/kl Vo~NES JR., ApPBU-MiT WAS "INEFFECTIVE 'AMD CMOSFTl
WITHDRAW AND ASANDdij' AppELLANT AND RELINQUISH or cjwe up WITH THi
INTENTION OF NE\/ER /\gAtN QEjCJ-AJMlNq AppELLANT RJcjtirS OR INTEREST
ThooqH rr was Ms. Brown-7-eto's r\qht to oecade whether t
CONTINUE TO QEpRESELNT Mx.JoNES, Ms. BroWN-'ZETQ STILL. HAD
TUE GDTWh/ TO £=LI F AMmriQA/ FOR /L Pehf^A/^'ai^ \NUJCU SHE
DID NOT EXHAUST ALL. REMEDIES ON BEtifU-F OF NJR. JoAlES. Se?E
Rule wa of ti4E ~Tex#x Rules of AppEAU-ANT Procedures.
What Ms. Brown-Zeto chcse to oa jnstfad is remoue uersb.
FOR ReASOAJABLF "pERSOMAl nAJN ny"pRnMnTfMCj tiFfi SERVirE*
TttROUGiA OORRESpONOEKlCE TO Mr. UonES. ,
pRhV
CouRT GraMT HIS Motion FOR DiscXErioNARy Review ToPRo^^edou
AppEAU._^
_ 9
Taiaaate DeCLARATXONl
CJ\RHERATE\T CN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CfiiMtNAL TJusTtCLE, QecLMl
UNDER PENALTY OF P8EJ0R.S/ THAT ACCORDING TO NV/ BELIEF; THE FACTS
"in the ftBovE NxoTinN to proofed In DcscRETioMAay Review, on
APPEAL. /mE TRUE AND CORRECT
^ SjWsm ON •OcTV'Bb=R£±L., SLQ15~.
Calvin Jones \Jfi.
Pro— Ge_
3DC2%HteOi£&mi3-
GrRiNdEELLoW Unit
iaoo Fm 6>s-er
&>SUflROU lams -I15V3
In The
Court ofAppeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-14-00460-CR
CALVIN JONES JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B080617-R
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Calvin Jones Jr. (Jones)
pleaded guilty to the offense of felony possession of a controlled substance,
enhanced by a prior felony conviction. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §
481.117(a), (e) (West 2010); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.42(c)(1) (West Supp.
2014).'The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Jones guilty, but
deferred further proceedings and placed Jones on community supervision for ten
years and assessed a $1,440.00 fine. The State subsequently filed its First
Amended Motion to Impose Guilt, to revoke Jones's unadjudicated community
supervision. Jones pleaded "true" to certain alleged violations of the conditions of
his community supervision. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court
found that Jones violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Jones
guilty of possession of a controlled substance, and assessed punishment at fifteen
years in prison.
Jones'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 March 3, 2015, and June 15, 2015, we granted an extension of time for
Jones to file a pro se brief. Jones filed a pro se Brief. The Court of Criminal
Appeals has held that 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
!We cite to the current version of the statute as the subsequent amendments
do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
2
remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief
the issues." Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
We have reviewed the entire appellate record, as well as all briefs, 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.
AFFIRMED.
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on June 4, 2015
Opinion Delivered July 29, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
2Jones may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
f >
z
5&
z.oo
^m1* O r=n
o
O-'T- —i o
cC>
XTz i«o
H-t2 6*3
cr>
»—1
•") O .-1 •<
•y c r-
<_* l-3rj
?•-!•<
£2
u
Q
%
_
0,