Court Opinion

ID: 9895106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 10:17:40.497692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:08.630098
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00101-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

JESSICA BRIONNA BAKER,                           §      APPEAL FROM THE 369TH
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §      CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM

       Jessica Brionna Baker appeals following the revocation of her deferred adjudication
community supervision.      Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436
S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

                                         BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of between one and four grams of
methamphetamine and pleaded “guilty.” The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and
placed her on community supervision for four years.
       Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and
to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions thereof.
Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of her community supervision,
in pertinent part, because she failed to abide by the law and committed the criminal offenses of
possession of a controlled substance, resisting arrest, and tampering with evidence.
       A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to
these violations, as alleged in the State’s motion. In support of its motion, the State elicited
testimony from, among others, Cherokee County Community Supervision and Corrections
Department Supervision Officer Simone Silvers. She testified that she was the community
supervision officer assigned to Appellant’s case. She further testified that Appellant violated the
conditions of her community supervision by committing the criminal offenses of possession of
methamphetamine, tampering with evidence, and resisting arrest.                           Jacksonville Police
Department Officer Aaron Trumbull later testified to the details surrounding Appellant’s arrest
on these charges.
        At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms
and conditions of her community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion. Thereafter, it
revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated her “guilty” as originally charged, and
sentenced her to imprisonment for ten years. This appeal followed.

                            ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
        Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of
the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for
appeal. 1 We likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

                                                 CONCLUSION
        As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file her own brief. The time for filing such a brief
has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                        2
         As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she either must retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a petition for discretionary review pro se.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this
opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should
comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered October 31, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                          OCTOBER 31, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00101-CR

                                   JESSICA BRIONNA BAKER,
                                           Appellant
                                              V.
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 369th District Court
                           of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 22101)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
                        It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.

                    By per curiam opinion.
                    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.