In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-14-00316-CR
JOYCE MARIE ACEY, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 251st District Court
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 67,658-C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding
February 5, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, Joyce Marie Acey, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of failure to
comply with sex offender registration requirements1 and, pursuant to a plea agreement
was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of four years.
Subsequently, the State of Texas filed a motion to adjudicate her guilty of the offense of
failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. Appellant entered pleas of
“not true” to two of the ten allegations and “true” to the other eight allegations. After
1
See Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 62.102(c) (West Supp. 2014).
hearing the evidence, the trial court found that all ten allegations were true. Thereafter,
the trial court found appellant guilty of the primary offense and assessed her
punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice for a period of five years. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We will
affirm.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of her
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that she has diligently reviewed the record, and in
her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,
there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that she
has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and
appropriately advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response in this matter.
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also
advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel
has certified that she has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in
preparation of a pro se response and a motion to seek a printed copy of the record.
See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has not
filed a response.
By her Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
2
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.2
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send her client a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
3