NO. 07-06-0066-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL B
FEBRUARY 27, 2007
______________________________
PAMELA RONALDA JACOBS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 251ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 43,762-C; HONORABLE PATRICK A. PIRTLE, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Pamela Ronalda Jacobs appeals the revocation of her community
supervision and sentence of 10 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice and accompanying restitution. We will affirm the judgment and grant
counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Appellant was indicted for the offense of intoxicated assault with a vehicle. On April
25, 2002, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense. Appellant and her counsel
acknowledged she received and reviewed written admonishments. Appellant further
signed a judicial confession of her guilt to the offense as alleged in the indictment. Having
determined that appellant was mentally competent, and that her actions in court were freely
and voluntarily taken, the trial court accepted appellant’s plea of guilty. In accordance with
the negotiated plea bargain, the trial court sentenced appellant to ten years imprisonment
suspended for ten years of community supervision and restitution.
In October 2003 and again in February 2004, the court continued appellant’s
community supervision but modified its terms after she pled true to allegations in motions
the State filed to revoke it. The State filed an additional motion to revoke appellant’s
community supervision in September 2005, and an amended motion in November 2005.
On January 9, 2006, the State filed its Second Amended Motion to Revoke Order
for Community Supervision. In its motion, the State alleged appellant failed to comply with
the conditions of her community supervision, specifically alleging six separate violations.
On January 27, 2006, appellant entered her plea of true to five of the six allegations in the
Second Amended Motion. At the conclusion of the January 27, 2006 hearing, the trial
court found appellant had violated the conditions of her community supervision and
revoked it. The court ordered her to serve the original sentence imposed on her conviction.
Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief stating that he has carefully reviewed the record
in this case and concludes there is no reversible error and that the appeal is frivolous. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967). Counsel has also filed a motion to
withdraw in the case and, by letter, informed appellant of her right to file a pro se brief.
Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex.App.–Waco 1994, pet. ref’d). By letter dated
2
July 10, 2006, this court also notified appellant of her opportunity to submit a response to
the Anders brief and motion to withdraw filed by her counsel, granting her until August 9,
2006 to do so. This court’s letter also reminded appellant to contact her counsel if she
needed to review any part of the appellate record to prepare a response. Appellant has
not filed a brief or other response.
We have independently examined the entire record in the case to determine
whether there are any non-frivolous grounds which might support the appeal.1 See Penson
v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).
We have found no such grounds. After reviewing the record before us and counsel’s brief,
we agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824
(Tex.Crim.App. 2005).
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
James T. Campbell
Justice
Do not publish.
1
Our review is limited, though, to any issues related to revocation of appellant’s
community supervision. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999).
3