Tressie Leanna Butcher v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_______________

NO. 09-25-00369-CR

NO. 09-25-00376-CR

________________

TRESSIE LEANNA BUTCHER, Appellant V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 24DCCR1732 and 24DCCR1733

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Tressie Leanna Butcher for one count of burglary of a habitation, a second-degree felony, and one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle, a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 30.02(a)(1), (c)(2) (burglary of a habitation), 31.07 (unauthorized use of a motor vehicle). Butcher pleaded guilty to both charges pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court accepted her plea, deferred the adjudication of guilt, and placed Butcher on

2

community supervision for ten years on the burglary of a habitation charge, five years of community supervision on the unauthorized use of a vehicle charge, and a $500 fine on each count.

Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation and an Amended Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation on both charges and alleged Butcher violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision. Butcher pleaded true to five of the alleged violations contained in the First Amended Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation and the trial court, having found that Butcher entered pleas of true to the violations, revoked her probation. The trial court sentenced Butcher to ten years’ imprisonment on the burglary of a habitation charge, and two years in state jail on the unauthorized use of a vehicle charge, with the sentences to run concurrently.

Butcher’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs presenting counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concluding that the appeals are frivolous; he also filed motions to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On December 8, 2025, after Butcher’s counsel filed his briefs, we granted an extension of time for Butcher to file a pro se brief, but Butcher filed no response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives an Anders brief, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

3

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues.” Id. (citation omitted). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. Id.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record, and counsel’s briefs, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude the appeals are wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We

affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1 0F

AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON

Chief Justice

Submitted on August 19, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 26, 2026 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1 Butcher may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.