Felicia Lurelia Otems A/K/A Felicia Otems Leon v. State

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-08-00297-CR

____________________



FELICIA LURELIA OTEMS a/k/a FELICIA OTEMS LEON, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 95316




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Felicia Lurelia Otems a/k/a Felicia Otems Leon pled guilty to assault on a public servant. On January 3, 2006, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Otems guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Otems on community supervision for seven years, and assessed a fine of $ 750. On April 5, 2007, the State filed a motion to revoke Otems's unadjudicated community supervision. Otems pled "true" to two violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found that Otems violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Otems guilty of assault on a public servant, and assessed punishment at twelve years of confinement.

Otems'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 October 16, 2008, 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.

____________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on February 11, 2009

Opinion Delivered February 25, 2009

Do Not Publish



Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, 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.