AARON TODD DAVIS v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont.

AARON TODD DAVIS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

NO. 09-16-00305-CR

Decided: September 20, 2017

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Aaron Todd Davis for robbery, a second degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code § 29.02 (West 2011). Davis pleaded guilty to the lesser-included offense of theft, and on July 1, 2014, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed Davis on community supervision for a period of five years. On December 5, 2014, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Davis had violated five conditions of his community supervision. The State subsequently amended its motion to adjudicate several times, adding additional allegations, and a hearing was held on the State's motion on August 17, 2016. Davis pleaded “not true” to the motion. After hearing evidence, the trial court found that Davis had violated six conditions of his community supervision. The court adjudicated Davis guilty and sentenced him to two years in state jail. Davis timely filed a notice of appeal.

Davis's appellate counsel subsequently 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. [Panel Op.] 1978). On October 20, 2016, this Court notified Davis that he could file a pro se brief on or before December 19, 2016. We have received no additional brief from him.

We have independently examined the entire appellate record in this matter, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Davis may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

CHARLES KREGER Justice