Court Opinion

ID: 3071358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:35:19.575807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:08:52.578511
License: Public Domain

In The

                               Court of Appeals
                   Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                          ____________________
                             NO. 09-13-00494-CR
                          ____________________

                 REBECCA DONNETT HARKEY, Appellant

                                       V.

                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________          ______________

                   On Appeal from the 411th District Court
                            Polk County, Texas
                          Trial Cause No. 21523
________________________________________________________          _____________

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Rebecca Donnett Harkey pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. See Tex.

Penal Code Ann. § 29.03 (West 2011). The trial court found the evidence sufficient

to find Harkey guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Harkey on

community supervision for ten years and assessed a $2,000 fine. The State

subsequently filed an amended motion to adjudicate guilt. Harkey pleaded “true”

to violating the terms of her community supervision. The trial court found Harkey

                                        1
violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Harkey guilty of

aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at forty-five years of confinement.

      Harkey’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record. Counsel concludes there are no arguable points of error.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). This Court granted an extension of time for appellant to

file a pro se response. We received no response from appellant.

      We have reviewed the appellate record and agree with counsel’s conclusion.

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Stafford v.

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). It is unnecessary to order

appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at

826-28; compare Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. The trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

      AFFIRMED.

                                                   _________________________
                                                       LEANNE JOHNSON
                                                             Justice

Submitted on May 22, 2014
Opinion Delivered June 11, 2014
Do Not Publish

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
                                         2