Jude Cotley Boudreaux v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 9th District Court of Appeals » 2008 » Jude Cotley Boudreaux v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-07-00542-CR

Case Date: 04/09/2008

Plaintiff: Jerry Rangel

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 361st District Court of Brazos County

Preview:Jude Cotley Boudreaux v. The State of Texas--Appeal
from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-07-542 CR
JUDE COTLEY BOUDREAUX, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 92634
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Jude Cotley Boudreaux was indicted for felony criminal mischief. Boudreaux pled guilty pursuant to a plea
bargain. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Boudreaux guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed
Boudreaux on community supervision for three years, and ordered Boudreaux to pay restitution. The State
subsequently filed a motion to revoke Boudreaux's unadjudicated community supervision. Boudreaux pled "true" to
three alleged violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court found that Boudreaux violated the
conditions of his community supervision, found Boudreaux guilty of felony criminal mischief, and assessed
punishment at sixteen months of confinement in a state jail facility. Boudreaux then filed this appeal.
Boudreaux'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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Boudreaux filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals
directs that we 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 either: (1) "that the appeal is
wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error"; or (2)
"that 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.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the
reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. 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 March 21, 2008.
Opinion Delivered April 9, 2008
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9425.html[8/20/2013 7:31:41 PM]

Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9425.html[8/20/2013 7:31:41 PM]

Download 9425.pdf