Tyson Jamaal Henry v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-06-00005-CR

Case Date: 12/06/2006

Plaintiff: Melvin Wayne Smith

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 173rd District Court of Henderson County

Preview:Tyson Jamaal Henry 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. 09-06-005 CR ____________________ TYSON JAMAAL HENRY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 90059 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Tyson Jamaal Henry pled guilty to aggravated robbery. The trial court deferred adjudicating Henry guilty, placed him on probation for ten years, assessed a fine of $10,000.00, and ordered restitution in the amount of $150.00. The trial court also ordered Henry to serve one hundred eighty days of "upfront" time in the county jail. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, in which it alleged that Henry had violated five of the terms of his probation. Henry pled "true" to three of the alleged violations. The trial court revoked Henry's probation, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to thirty years of confinement. Henry'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). On July 20, 2006, we granted an extension of time for Henry to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We 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. HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on November 28, 2006 Opinion Delivered December 6, 2006 Do Not Publish

Before Gaultney, 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/PDFs1/8642.html[8/20/2013 7:29:34 PM]

Download 8642.pdf