Beyonka Limbrick v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 4, 2020
• Docket: 09-20-00066-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00066-CR __________________

BEYONKA LIMBRICK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 411th District Court San Jacinto County, Texas Trial Cause No. 9,585 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Beyonka Limbrick pleaded

guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a state jail

felony. The trial court found Limbrick guilty and assessed punishment at two years

in state jail, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Limbrick on community

supervision for five years, and assessed a $500 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a

motion to revoke Limbrick’s community supervision. Limbrick pleaded “not true”

to the alleged violations of the terms of the community supervision order. After

1 conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Limbrick violated the

terms of her community supervision, revoked Limbrick’s community supervision,

and imposed a sentence of ten months of confinement.

Limbrick’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 May 15, 2020, we granted an extension of time for Limbrick to file a pro

se brief. We received no response from Limbrick. We have 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. Cf. 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Submitted on October 1, 2020 Opinion Delivered November 4, 2020 Do Not Publish

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

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