Paula Jean Todd v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Paula Jean Todd v. State

DecidedAugust 26, 2009

Docket03-09-00040-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Paula Jean Todd v. State (Paula Jean Todd v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paula Jean Todd v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00040-CR Paula Jean Todd, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 58693, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In December 2005, appellant Paula Jean Todd pleaded guilty to forgery and was sentenced to two years in state jail, but sentence was not imposed and she was placed on community supervision for five years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West Supp. 2008). In December 2008, after appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the State's motion to revoke, the trial court revoked supervision and imposed a fifteen-month state jail sentence.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: August 26, 2009

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00040-CR Paula Jean Todd, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 58693, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In December 2005, appellant Paula Jean Todd pleaded guilty to forgery and was sentenced to two years in state jail, but sentence was not imposed and she was placed on community supervision for five years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.21 (West Supp. 2008). In December 2008, after appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the State's motion to revoke, the trial court revoked supervision and imposed a fifteen-month state jail sentence.

Appellant's court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel's brief and was advised of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel's brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: August 26, 2009

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paula Jean Todd v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paula-jean-todd-v-state-texapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack