In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-02-507 CR
____________________
KASSIE ANTOINETTE WILSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
San Jacinto County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 8377
Appellant, Kassie Antoinette Wilson, entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to the lesser-included felony offense of Aggravated Robbery. (1) See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 29.03 (Vernon 2003). The trial court convicted and sentenced appellant to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of forty years.
Appellate counsel filed a brief that concludes no arguable error is presented in this appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant was provided an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief. We have received a type-written pro se document from appellant, filed September 4, 2003. As there is no plea bargain agreement apparent from the record before us, we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Jack v. State, 871 S.W.2d 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). (2)
The document filed by appellant as her designated brief raises no appellate issues, and contains no authorities nor argument in an effort to alter her judgment and sentence. There is a lengthy recitation of her version of the events surrounding the killing of the victim and the subsequent investigation by the authorities into her role in the killing. She also complains of being misled by her trial counsel, but she does not elaborate. She says she received "only a few visits" from him, and was unaware of the facts of her case. This is in contrast to her sworn testimony at the guilty-plea hearing in which she affirmed to the trial court that trial counsel had visited her "on numerous occasions," that trial counsel had "discussed this case and has answered all of your questions," and that she was "satisfied with the legal advise [sic] and representation he has given you." Stapled to her brief are copies of three appellate court cases. However, these cases are not referenced in any way in the body of her brief. Nevertheless, as this appeal came to us via an Anders claim from appellate counsel we will conduct an independent review of the record for any arguable error and order appointment of new counsel if any arguable error is found. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
The plea proceeding appears to have been proper and conducted as required by Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2004). The subsequent punishment hearing also appears proper. A videotape statement by appellant was introduced into evidence and played for the trial court. Appellant also called witnesses who testified on her behalf. The trial court then assessed punishment within the punishment range for the offense. We have also reviewed the hearing on appellant's written motion to suppress and find no error in the denial of the motion. Appellant was not in custody during the recording of the first videotape statement and appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived her rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) prior to giving the second videotape statement. There appears to be no violation of appellant's constitutional rights nor a violation of the provisions of either Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.22 (Vernon Supp. 2004), or Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 38.23 (Vernon Supp. 2004).
As we find no arguable error, and find that appellant's pro se brief contains no cognizable appellate issues, we affirm the judgment and the sentence of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
___________________________________
DAVID B. GAULTNEY
Justice
Submitted on February 6 , 2004
Opinion Delivered February 11, 2004
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Burgess, and Gaultney, JJ.
1. Appellant was initially indicted for Capital Murder. However, on the day of the plea
of guilty by appellant, the State filed a motion to proceed only on the lesser-included offense
of Aggravated Robbery. The State's motion was granted by the trial court.
2.