Debrah Elizabeth East v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: April 17, 2026
• Docket: 06-25-00147-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00147-CR

DEBRAH ELIZABETH EAST, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 402nd District Court Wood County, Texas Trial Court No. 24,958-2022

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

Debrah Elizabeth East pled guilty to possession of less than one gram of

methamphetamine, a state jail felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b)

(Supp.). Pursuant to her plea bargain with the State, the trial court placed East on deferred

adjudication community supervision for three years. Within that time, the State alleged that East

violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision by using controlled substances

and by failing to complete her community supervision restitution as ordered. After an

evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the State’s allegations true, adjudicated East’s guilt, and

sentenced her to nine months’ confinement in State jail. East appeals.

East’s attorney has filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no

genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural

history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court

proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of

Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,

509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

On January 20, 2026, counsel mailed to East copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw,

and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only East’s signature. East was

2 informed of her rights to review the record and file a pro se response. On January 20, we

informed East that her pro se motion for access to the appellate record was due on or before

February 5. By letter dated February 24, this Court informed East that the case would be set for

submission on March 17, and that her pro se response was due on or before that date. We

received neither a pro se response from East nor a motion requesting an extension of time in

which to file such a response.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently

reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue

supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In

the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial

court’s judgment. Id.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: March 17, 2026 Date Decided: April 17, 2026

Do Not Publish

1 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 3