Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2009

Ahmad Jamal Acrond v. State

Ahmad Jamal Acrond v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided August 26, 2009

Ahmad Jamal Acrond v. State

Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________



NO. 09-08-00468-CR

____________________



AHMAD JAMAL ACROND, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 97334




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Ahmad Jamal Acrond pled guilty to assault on a family member. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Acrond guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Acrond on community supervision for five years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Acrond's unadjudicated community supervision. Acrond pled "true" to five violations of the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Acrond violated the conditions of his community supervision, found Acrond guilty of assault on a family member, and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement.

Acrond'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 April 9 , 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from 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.



STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on August 6, 2009

Opinion Delivered August 26, 2009

Do Not Publish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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.