Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Case Number: 09-17-00069-CR 09-17-00070-CR

Judge:

Court: Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Plaintiff's Attorney: Wayln G. Thompson

Defendant's Attorney: Brittanie Holmes

Description: Luis Gama appeals from the judgments rendered by the Criminal District
Court in trial court cause numbers 12-14065 (delivery of a controlled substance),
and 12-14137 (possession of a controlled substance), both first-degree felonies. See
Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 481.112(d), 481.115(f) (West 2017). Both of
Gama’s convictions are based on Gama’s plea agreements with the State. After
Gama appealed the convictions, the attorney the trial court appointed to represent
him in his appeals filed Anders briefs, which contend that no arguable grounds exist



2

to support a decision reversing Gama’s convictions. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
The records in the trial court that are relevant to Gama’s convictions show that
in 2012, in each of Gama’s cases, Gama entered guilty pleas to the allegations in his
indictments pursuant to his plea agreements with the State. In the hearing in which
Gama pleaded guilty, the court deferred finding Gama guilty, and then placed Gama
on community service for ten years. Approximately five years later, the State filed
motions in both of Gama’s cases asking the trial court to revoke its decisions placing
Gama on community supervision. The State’s motions to revoke allege that Gama
violated one of the conditions imposed on him by the trial court in its community
supervision order.
In February 2017, the trial court conducted a hearing in which it considered
both of the State’s motions. Gama pled “true” to the allegations in the State’s
motions to revoke, both of which alleged that Gama had violated one of the terms of
his supervision orders. The trial court revoked its orders placing Gama on
community supervision, found Gama guilty of delivery of a controlled substance and
possession of a controlled substance, sentenced Gama to serve ten-year sentences in
each case, and ordered that Gama serve his sentences concurrently.
The briefs that were filed by the attorney appointed to represent Gama in his
appeals present counsel’s professional evaluation of the records that are relevant to



3

Gama’s convictions. In both briefs, Gama’s counsel concludes that no error occurred
in the proceedings in the lower court. After receiving the Anders briefs filed in
Gama’s appeals, we allowed Gama to have additional time to review the record to
file a pro se brief. Gama did not do so.

Outcome: After reviewing the records on appeal, we agree with the conclusion of
Gama’s attorney that no arguable error can be advanced on his behalf to support his appeals. We also conclude that no necessity exists requiring the appointment of new counsel to re-brief Gama’s appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (requiring the court of appeals to appoint other counsel only if it determines that there were arguable grounds for the appeal). Based on the records before us in the appeals, we conclude that Gama’s appeals are frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 743. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.1
AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: