1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-20-00067-CR

NO. 09-20-00068-CR

NO. 09-20-00069-CR

NO. 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 Nos. 14-18971, 15-22562, 15-22563, 

15-22817, 15-22818, 16-24103, 16-24377 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Wanda Yvette Robertson appeals the trial court’s revocation of her 

community supervision in seven separate cause numbers.

1 Robertson 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 

substance, 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, 15-22817 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 supported the 

motions and revoked Robertson’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 her appeal filed an Anders

brief which asserted that the attorney 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. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel served Robertson 

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 id. In cause 

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

id. In cause number 15-22818, Robertson was charged with felony theft, a state jail 

felony. See id. In cause number 16-24103, Robertson was charged with felony theft, 

a state jail felony. See id. In cause number 16-24377, Robertson was charged with

felony theft, a state jail felony. See id. at 31.03(f).
3

with a copy of the Anders brief filed on her behalf. This Court notified Robertson 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) (stating 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 challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for 

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