In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00316-CR 

JOYCE MARIE ACEY, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 67,658-C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding 

 

February 5, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant, Joyce Marie Acey, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of failure to 

comply with sex offender registration requirements1and, pursuant to a plea agreement 

was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of four years. 

Subsequently, the State of Texas filed a motion to adjudicate her guilty of the offense of 

failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. Appellant entered pleas of 

“not true” to two of the ten allegations and “true” to the other eight allegations. After 

 

1

See Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 62.102(c) (West Supp. 2014).
2

hearing the evidence, the trial court found that all ten allegations were true. Thereafter, 

the trial court found appellant guilty of the primary offense and assessed her 

punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice for a period of five years. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We will 

affirm.

Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of her

motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that she has diligently reviewed the record, and in 

her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be 

predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, 

there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that she 

has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and 

appropriately advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response in this matter. 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also 

advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel 

has certified that she has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in 

preparation of a pro se response and a motion to seek a printed copy of the record.

See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has not 

filed a response. 

By her Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an 

appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and 

made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any 
3

arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the 

appeal is frivolous.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s 

judgment is affirmed.2

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish. 

 

 

2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send her client a copy of the 

opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.