Calvin Jones Jr., Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
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).1 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 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.2
1. We cite to the current version of the statute as the subsequent amendments do not affect the outcome of this appeal.
2. Jones may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex.R.App. P. 68.