<^ /066*/5 ORIGINAL .Xai IHE Nmry Cntjcn- of Appeals m^ty-^ooM-6-Qih3P^ ^__^ _ ^ECE/ued \U RECEIVED CMymTn^sUa.t Appellant ^^^^mALappeal OCT 2 6 2015 i/ '/ OCT 3O|0f5 CAROL ANNE HARLEY Tub State, of ieaas Appellee ' •// ' •**»»* wsia,uei

DuiJfaDEALJpJBQJbL-LtiE^ 163RPJDimSLCTAlL Tbki Caikp fa Ro<?Of,t7~R fyfEU^^ For PMerriomY %MSappeals Abel Acosta, Clerk

CafiAFS yow Calvin CIc^nes Jr^ -oy ~ntE. ABOVE. Entitled WD (TURisDitTiONOVERMiS WDEALMDlH SuWORT VJouuD SHOW THE (louRJLJT^E^BoiJU^lNaA __

^Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel.

fjgf? Repg£sarmr/oM was oeficasnt, Ms. Roger's deficient P&t- FOR/MUTE AFFECTED CpRBTVDlCED^ TUB. OUTCOME OF NW CAf)E^_

fwyrnim gutuF TWRl-E were f See Pacje nlo.'/q une ia-ao of 'THE ^R^po^T£JllS_R£CnfLD!JVQUjME &GF3. l\hs. RcxjERS STOOD RV Mcrnhk i.FSfi ns TUOUQU SUE WAS^lMOtiUEQEMT AND> \HOr)t\AQET^i\rr. SbE

UWVL^ZNADDmOM Ms. RncjEBG- EpRED-^MaOE F.f?Qna» G&E TMcrflflrS Sl^SmrrE; j? &W, 3D. <?o&t VIZ, <2i3 ClezA, Ctf/M ftpp. iW<l). &round For Review Mu/^rFI? ~Twa tT~/yn icmsjj f=nt ^E^STATE^Fa1leoto__us^^ )qOQ "fUltoMrFME-rtT- OUBrxn^tt'' WLllfill /«n TO (Mil auJFUL. ^FhttMO

Ground^Eoju2e\/JewJ^umqer^ree.

MtOUrriON Of fooQTEEHTU Am£NDM&JT DUE f)?nf>r<=ft Ex mRtel tiaRRfc sr^ 5,W m <?** (t^k. Cr/m Add, mm. Ma CJZnE? "aulurry puEf{" was MVouuttrnM because Ms. Rocjeos WAshEFPECrivB Ms, KOREAS dip ucrr cioNSULsr vjrnj defbhdant; piQ NOT Map'lRE A3 TO det&mmim&Jeji^bn&mec^^^ ?>tvod pss Mr.'^Zaies PLE&DquiLrry. .__ Ground For Res/'iEW Number FvuR ^ __ .„ Plea BaR^Mti Agreement "l/'- JELk p&n& Dm%.t c>io S, U/. sip -yes- (lex. Cgi'm App iG9i). Mr. Jones PLE&J&mailJ AcjREE/VlEMT WAS TNVQLUNTARv" BASED ON TUB FMCTf U-ie &OIL.TY PLeA WAS "iNVQWMTAR/' SINCE ttis PtTTORNEV. M$. f?ojER€ WAG INEFFECTIVE. Afe. RojEftS WAS ESSENTIALLY ZTVST A Gop-G/T MAN WUQ WAG PRESENT WITH MRdoNES WHEN HE PLEADED QiJt TO fl "NOME pRE-AflRAfCjMEQL DEAL. BETWEEN M°M Aa/O TUE STATE. AlojE ^/ksgArr/A/g opinio$ erring Ex pA/tTE Harris 5~<?6 S.W* aq «y%3 lTex.

Crj'm, App- two aaio Ex parte Bratcmett. s~i3 S.W. aavs-i (~Tkx~ C&m.App^m42_ ______^__ flggjW" ^ Rf=tftEW NiJMRF.R F'l/E _____ ^EuGUFFLCJlENrT ELviOEHOE Xn the Cjdurt Reporter's Record Volume ll Pqqf £; Lines iC-Tam- If the Court was ABAfifoohfiha awtv/a/g tin /or about $uj£n f^isrf. jpub \&m . "Tf/g CjQURT AGREED, BUT" W14EN LOOK\NQ AT THE TJuO^E/VjEhrT AcfJVDJcJEr/NO GuJLrr' otf RECORD F&QM THE CodAiry CjlERKS OFFICE MR. OoME^ THE DEFENDAT WAS CMARQED^ Wiry PtetfESfiloN OF ACog TAoujEJ^jeuesrmtE^To^ vJE.lQhtT tUrcxJOlMQ AdUL.TBf>^(jryi AMD Uilut%mts_ of less than &$ ^RAN&r ONoHAGOUT H&RUWy 1%SL0i3i in GfWiQE G>umtV, 1ejCA% liji.5 IS ABSOLUTE Ly False Gee Uaclk^o^ \t Wfow/V mi U.S. 3cnJ <?<? Gcxanv\ (mo)r H'jQTADQ V Tucker, vo F'Gupp ad ui (Nines /<?<??) _ L GenuMD For /?a/jgw MuMRFR Six ____ _^ 3~AJFfrFECTJ\/E Ae5i5TAML^.0FCoUA/5£i {\ppEf\L- Atto/?a/e/- Christine Brown-zeto yMs, CjjRisTJNFi Brown-^EToATrnRHEy at Law i/qt &&fem CbLA/kl Vo~NES JR., ApPBU-MiT WAS "INEFFECTIVE 'AMD CMOSFTl WITHDRAW AND ASANDdij' AppELLANT AND RELINQUISH or cjwe up WITH THi INTENTION OF NE\/ER /\gAtN QEjCJ-AJMlNq AppELLANT RJcjtirS OR INTEREST ThooqH rr was Ms. Brown-7-eto's r\qht to oecade whether t CONTINUE TO QEpRESELNT Mx.JoNES, Ms. BroWN-'ZETQ STILL. HAD TUE GDTWh/ TO £=LI F AMmriQA/ FOR /L Pehf^A/^'ai^ \NUJCU SHE DID NOT EXHAUST ALL. REMEDIES ON BEtifU-F OF NJR. JoAlES. Se?E Rule wa of ti4E ~Tex#x Rules of AppEAU-ANT Procedures.

What Ms. Brown-Zeto chcse to oa jnstfad is remoue uersb.

FOR ReASOAJABLF "pERSOMAl nAJN ny"pRnMnTfMCj tiFfi SERVirE* TttROUGiA OORRESpONOEKlCE TO Mr. UonES. , pRhV CouRT GraMT HIS Motion FOR DiscXErioNARy Review ToPRo^^edou AppEAU._^ _ 9

Taiaaate DeCLARATXONl

CJ\RHERATE\T CN THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CfiiMtNAL TJusTtCLE, QecLMl UNDER PENALTY OF P8EJ0R.S/ THAT ACCORDING TO NV/ BELIEF; THE FACTS "in the ftBovE NxoTinN to proofed In DcscRETioMAay Review, on APPEAL. /mE TRUE AND CORRECT ^ SjWsm ON •OcTV'Bb=R£±L., SLQ15~.

Calvin Jones \Jfi.

Pro— Ge_ 3DC2%HteOi£&mi3- GrRiNdEELLoW Unit iaoo Fm 6>s-er &>SUflROU lams -I15V3 In The

Court ofAppeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-14-00460-CR

CALVIN JONES JR., Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. B080617-R

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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).'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

!We cite to the current version of the statute as the subsequent amendments do not affect the outcome of this appeal. 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.

AFFIRMED.

LEANNE JOHNSON Justice

Submitted on June 4, 2015 Opinion Delivered July 29, 2015 Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

2Jones may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. f >

z 5& z.oo ^m1* O r=n o O-'T- —i o cC> XTz i«o H-t2 6*3 cr> »—1 •") O .-1 •< •y c r- <_* l-3rj ?•-!•< £2

u Q

% _

0,