In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
09-21-00189-CR
09-21-00190-CR
________________
JOANNE SCHIWART, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 18-29721 and 18-29722
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Joanne Schiwart pleaded
guilty to forgery and credit card or debit card abuse. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§
32.21; 32.31(b)(1)(A). In cause number 18-29721, the trial court found the evidence
sufficient to find Schiwart guilty of forgery but deferred further proceedings and
placed Schiwart on community supervision for five years. In cause number 18-29722
the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Schiwart guilty of credit card or
1
debit card abuse but deferred further proceedings and placed Schiwart on community
supervision for two years.
Subsequently, prior to the expiration of the terms of community supervision,
the State filed motions to revoke Schiwart’s community supervision. In both cases,
Schiwart pleaded “true” to violating certain terms of the community supervision
order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the evidence
was sufficient in both cases to find that Schiwart violated those terms of her
community supervision. In cause number 18-29721, the trial court revoked
Schiwart’s community supervision, found Schiwart guilty of forgery, and assessed
punishment at five years of confinement. In cause number 18-29722, the trial court
revoked Schiwart’s community supervision, found Schiwart guilty of credit card or
debit card abuse, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement. The trial
court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
Schiwart’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs that present counsel’s
professional evaluation of the records and conclude the appeals are frivolous. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). On August 2, 2021, we granted an extension of time for Schiwart
to file pro se briefs and notified her of the deadline for doing so. We received no
response from Schiwart in either case.
2
We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s
conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it
unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s
judgments. 1
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on February 23, 2022
Opinion Delivered April 20, 2022
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
1
Schiwart may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3