Legal Research AI

Jackie Mathers v. State

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date filed: 2008-02-13
Citations:
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases
Combined Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-07-266 CR

____________________



JACKIE MATHERS, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 86356




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Jackie Mathers pled guilty to forgery. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Mathers guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Mathers on community supervision for four years, and assessed a fine of $500. On September 19, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Mathers's unadjudicated community supervision. Mathers pled "true" to violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found that Mathers violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Mathers guilty of forgery by passing, and assessed punishment at eighteen months of confinement in a state jail facility.

Mathers's appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On September 20, 2007, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. (1)

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice



Submitted on February 5, 2008

Opinion Delivered February 13, 2008

Do not publish



Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.