eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2001-10

Brenda Joyce Bernard Landry v. State of Texas ( 2001 )


Menu:

  •   

    In The



    Court of Appeals



    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



    ____________________



    NO. 09-00-508 CR

    ____________________



    BRENDA JOYCE BERNARD LANDRY, Appellant



    V.



    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



    On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

    Jefferson County, Texas

    Trial Cause No. 77928



    OPINION  

    Brenda Joyce Bernard Landry pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of securing execution of document by deception. The trial court convicted Landry and assessed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility. The trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and on July 6, 1999, placed Landry on community supervision for four years. On October 13, 2000, Landry pleaded "true" to allegations, contained in the State's motion to revoke community supervision, that she failed to perform community service and pay fees as ordered by the court. The trial court found those allegations to be true, as well as additional allegations that Landry committed the criminal offense of attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud and failure to report to the community supervision officer. The trial court ordered Landry to serve her two year sentence.   

    After appeal was perfected, appellate 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 High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The brief concludes that the record presents no arguable error which would support an appeal, a conclusion with which we concur. On July 19, 2001, Landry was given an extension of time in which to file a pro se brief if she so desired. We received no response from the appellant.

    Issues relating to the conviction may be raised only in an appeal taken when community supervision is originally imposed. See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361, 363 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). In the appeal of an order revoking community supervision, the only question presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the appellant's community supervision. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Landry admitted to violating the conditions of continued community supervision.  

    We have reviewed the clerk's and the reporter's records, and find no arguable error requiring us to order appointment of new counsel. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

    AFFIRMED.

    PER CURIAM



    Submitted on October 22, 2001

    Opinion Delivered October 31, 2001

    Do Not Publish



    Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.