NO. 09-12-00069-CR NO. 09-12-00070-CR NO. 09-12-00071-CR NO. 09-12-00072-CR
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 10-08776, 10-10315, 10-10316, 10-10317
Derek Scott Marshall appeals from the trial court's orders revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudicating his guilt in four offenses: one offense of burglary of a habitation (a habitual felony offender) (cause number 10-08776), and three offenses of burglary of a building enhanced by prior felony convictions (cause numbers 10-10315, 10-10316, and10-10317). The trial court sentenced Marshall to twenty-five years in the burglary-of-a-habitation offense and ten years each in the three burglary-of-a-building offenses. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Marshall's attorney filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Marshall filed a pro se brief. The Court of Criminal Appeals has explained that an appellate court may determine in an Anders case 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." Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In each case, we have reviewed the Anders brief, the pro se response, the State's brief, the clerk's record, and the reporter's record. We agree with Marshall's counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. It is unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See id.; compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the convictions.
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.