IMELDA ALEJANDRE v. JUAN SALAZAR, JR. AND GUADALUPE AGUIRRE--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-00-00632-CV

Case Date: 12/14/2000

Plaintiff: IMELDA ALEJANDRE

Defendant: JUAN SALAZAR, JR. AND GUADALUPE AGUIRRE--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

Preview:In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________
NO. 09-10-00008-CR NO. 09-10-00009-CR

____________________
GERAUD BOYD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 97269 and 97335 _____________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Geraud Boyd entered guilty pleas to two charges of burglary of a habitation. In each case, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Boyd guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Boyd on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke Boyd's unadjudicated community supervision in both cases. Boyd pled "true" in both cases to several violations of the conditions of his community supervision. In each case, the trial court found that Boyd violated the

1

conditions of his community supervision, found him guilty, and assessed punishment at six years of confinement. concurrently. Boyd's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. The trial court ordered that the sentences were to run

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On March 4, 2010, we granted an extension of time in each case for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. 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.1 AFFIRMED.

___________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on June 8, 2010 Opinion Delivered July 7, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2

1

Download 10907.pdf