1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

___________________

NO. 09-13-00481-CR

___________________

REGINA KAYE VANWINKLE,

A/K/A REGINA THOMPLINS,

A/K/A REGINA VANWINKLE,

A/K/A SHAYNA KAYE COLEMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11-11801

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this appeal, counsel for Regina Kaye Vanwinkle,

1 the appellant, filed a 

brief stating that there are no arguable points of error that would allow Vanwinkle

to obtain relief from her conviction. After reviewing the record, we agree that no 

 

1

Regina Kaye Vanwinkle is also known as Regina Thomplins, Regina 

Vanwinkle, and Shayna Kaye Coleman.
2

arguable issues support Vanwinkle’s appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738 (1967).

In carrying out a plea agreement, Vanwinkle pled guilty to felony theft. See 

Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2013).2 Under the terms of 

Vanwinkle’s plea agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of 

Vanwinkle’s guilt and placed Vanwinkle on community supervision for five years. 

Subsequently, by motion, the State asked the trial court to revoke its 

community supervision order and to find Vanwinkle guilty of felony theft. At the 

motion to revoke hearing, after Vanwinkle pled true to committing an additional 

theft while on community supervision, the trial court found that Vanwinkle 

violated a term of the trial court’s deferred adjudication order, revoked 

Vanwinkle’s unadjudicated probation, found Vanwinkle guilty of felony theft, and 

assessed a sentence of two years in state jail. 

On appeal, Vanwinkle’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s 

professional evaluation of the record. The brief contains counsel’s conclusion that 

Vanwinkle’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow 

 

2

The changes made to this statute following the commission of Vanwinkle’s 

theft do not affect the outcome of this appeal and thus, we cite to the current 

version of the statute.
3

Vanwinkle to file a pro se brief. Vanwinkle did not file a pro se brief, but she did 

file a letter requesting that we reduce her sentence by six months. 

After reviewing the appellate record, Vanwinkle’s letter, and the trial court’s 

judgment, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support 

Vanwinkle’s appeal. Therefore, we need not order the appointment of new counsel 

to re-brief Vanwinkle’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991). Because no arguable issues support Vanwinkle’s appeal, we 

affirm the trial court’s judgment.3

AFFIRMED.

___________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Submitted on April 1, 2014

Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014

Do Not Publish

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

 3

Vanwinkle may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.