Joycealyn Denise Williams v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 16, 2009
• Docket: 14-09-00036-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 16, 2009

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 16, 2009.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-09-00036-CR

JOYCEALYN DENISE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 92202

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant entered a guilty plea to robbery.  In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for three years, with a condition of confinement for ninety-days in county jail, and assessed a $500.00 fine.  On May 7, 2007, the trial court amended the terms of community supervision.  On July 23, 2008, the State moved to adjudicate guilt.  The trial court adjudicated guilt but on September 29, 2008, vacated its judgment and reinstated community supervision.  The State filed a second motion to adjudicate guilt.  On December 1, 2008, appellant pled true to the first allegation that she violated the conditions of her community supervision by committing theft.  The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellant=s appointed counsel filed a brief in which she concludes this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.  See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-12 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel=s brief was delivered to appellant.  Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).   On June 4, 2009, appellant filed a pro se response to counsel=s brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel=s brief, and appellant=s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  Further, we find no reversible error in the record.  A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state.  We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Brown, and Sullivan.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).