Crystal Kay Morris v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 12, 2023
• Docket: 09-22-00342-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-22-00342-CR __________________

CRYSTAL KAY MORRIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15-21580 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Crystal Kay Morris pleaded

guilty to the offense of failure to stop and render aid, a third-degree felony. See Tex.

Transp. Code Ann. § 550.021. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find

Morris guilty of the offense of failure to stop and render aid but deferred further

proceedings, placed Morris on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a

$1000 fine.

1 The State filed a Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation. Morris pleaded

“true” to violating the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court

revoked Morris’s community supervision, found Morris guilty of failing to stop and

render aid, and assessed punishment at five years of confinement but suspended the

sentence and placed Morris on community supervision for ten years and assessed a

Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision,

alleging that Morris committed a new offense and administrative violations. Morris

pleaded “true” to three administrative violations and “untrue” to the allegation of the

new offense. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the allegation that Morris

assaulted a disabled individual, the trial court found the allegations regarding the

new offense and Morris’s failure to report to be “true,” found the evidence was

sufficient Morris violated the terms of her community supervision, revoked Morris’s

community supervision, and assessed punishment at four years of confinement.

Morris’s appellate counsel filed an Anders 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 27, 2023, we granted an extension of time for Morris

to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Morris.

2 We have reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion that no arguable issues support the 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.

_________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice

Submitted on July 5, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 12, 2023 Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

1Morris may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3