Galen Dwayne Baugus v. State ( 2018 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-17-00012-CR
____________________
GALEN DWAYNE BAUGUS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 221st District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 08-12-11826-CR
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, the court-appointed appellate counsel for Galen Dwayne
Baugus filed a brief in which she contends that she can advance no arguable grounds
to support a decision reversing Baugus’s conviction for sexual assault. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 22.011(a)(1) (West Supp. 2017). After reviewing the record, we
agree with Baugus’s counsel that no arguable issues exist to support his appeal. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
1
Based on his plea agreement, Baugus pleaded guilty to an indictment
charging him with sexual assault, a second-degree felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 22.022(a)(1)(A), (f) (West Supp. 2017). Based on Baugus’s plea, the trial court
deferred adjudicating Baugus’s guilt and placed him on community supervision for
six years. Subsequently, the State filed an amended motion to revoke the trial court’s
community-supervision order, alleging that Baugus had violated ten of the
requirements in the order.
During the hearing on the State’s motion, Baugus pleaded “not true” to nine
of the alleged violations, and the State abandoned the other. Three witnesses testified
during the hearing. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found that Baugus
violated six of the conditions required by the trial court’s community-supervision
order. Based on those findings, the trial court found Baugus guilty of sexual assault,
and sentenced him to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice for a term of twenty years.
In Baugus’s appeal, counsel representing Baugus filed a brief presenting
counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, counsel concludes that
no arguable errors exist to support filing a merits-based brief. See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). After receiving the
2
Anders brief, we extended the briefing deadlines to allow Baugus time to file a pro
se response. Even so, Baugus did not file a response.
After reviewing the appellate record and the Anders brief that are before us in
the appeal, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that any appeal would be frivolous.
Thus, we conclude that no further briefing is required to dispose of Baugus’s appeal.
Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the
court of appeals to appoint new counsel only if it determines that there were arguable
grounds for the appeal). Given our conclusion that no arguable error exists to support
Baugus’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on March 13, 2018
Opinion Delivered August 15, 2018
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1
Baugus may challenge our decision by petitioning for discretionary review.
Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3