1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ NO. 09 - 20 - 000 67 - CR NO. 09 - 20 - 00068 - CR NO. 09 - 20 - 00069 - CR N O. 09 - 20 - 00070 - CR NO. 09 - 20 - 00071 - CR NO. 09 - 20 - 00072 - CR NO. 09 - 20 - 00073 - CR

__________________ WANDA YVETTE ROBERTSON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No s . 14 - 18971, 15 - 22562, 15 - 22563, 15 - 22817, 15 - 22818, 16 - 2410 3 , 16 - 24377 M EMORANDUM OPINION Wanda Yvette Robertson appeals the trial court’s revocation of her community supervision in seven separate cause numbers
. 1 R obertson pled true to

1 The State filed a motion to revoke in each of the following cause numbers: In cause number 14

- 18971, Robertson was charged with possession of a controlled substanc e, a second

- degree felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.129(d)(1). In cause number 15

- 22562, Robertson was charged with felony theft,2 allegation number 1 in the State’s motion to revoke in cause numbers 15

- 22562, 15

- 22563, 15

- 2 2 817 without an agreement with the State
. Separately in the same hearing, Robertson pled true to allegation number 1 in the State’s motion to revoke in cause numbers 15

- 22818, 16

- 24103, 16

- 24377, and 14

- 18971 without an agreement with the State. The trial court found sufficient evidence support ed the motions and revoked Robertso n ’s community supervision in each cause number and sentenced Robertson to confinement in the state jail for two years on each of the state felony charges and to five years on the second

- degree felony charge and ordered all the sentences to run concurrently
. The trial court certified that this was not a plea

- bargain case and Robertson had the right of appeal. Robertson timely filed a notice of appeal. The attorney appointed to represent Robertson in h er appeal filed an Anders brief which asserted that the at torney diligently reviewed the record and found no meritorious claims on which to appeal Robertson’s sentence and that any appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 810

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [P anel Op.] 1978). Counsel served R obertson a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann
. § 31.03 (e)(4)(A) . In cause number 15

- 22563, Robertson was charged with felony theft, a state jail felony. See i d. In cause number 15

- 22817, Robertson was charged with felony theft, a state jail felony. See i d. In cause number 15

- 22818, Robertson was charged with felony th eft, a state jail felony. See i d. In cause number 16

- 24103 , Robertson was charged with felony theft, a state jail felony. See i d. In cause number 16

- 24377, Robertson was charged with felony theft, a state jail felony. See i d. at 31.03(f).3 with a copy of the Anders brief filed on her behalf. This Court notified R obertson of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for doing so. This Court did not receive a pro se response. We have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (st ating that the reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist). The Court concludes it is unnecessary for us to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief this appeal. Cf. id. As no arguable grounds exist to support the appeal, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment. 2 AFFIRMED.

_________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on February 19, 2021 Opinion Delivered March 17, 2021 Do Not Publish Before Golemon C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.

2 Robertson may c hallenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.