Tammy Lynn Hastert v. State

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________



NO. 09-09-00244-CR

____________________



TAMMY LYNN HASTERT, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 08-03990




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Tammy Lynn Hastert pled guilty to evading arrest or detention by using a motor vehicle. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Hastert guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Hastert on community supervision for three years, and assessed a fine of $750. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Hastert's unadjudicated community supervision. Hastert pled "true" to five violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found that Hastert violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Hastert guilty of evading arrest or detention by using a motor vehicle, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility.

Hastert'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 August 20, 2009, 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.

_________________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice



Submitted on November 24, 2009

Opinion Delivered December 9, 2009

Do Not Publish



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

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