eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2002-01

Minnie Annette Coleman v. State of Texas ( 2002 )


Menu:

  •   

    In The



    Court of Appeals



    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



    ____________________



    NO. 09-01-190 CR

    NO. 09-01-191 CR

    ____________________



    MINNIE ANNETTE COLEMAN, Appellant



    V.



    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee



    On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

    Jefferson County, Texas

    Trial Cause Nos. 80286 and 82052



    OPINION  

    Minnie Annette Coleman pleaded guilty in Cause No. 80286 to the state jail felony offense of theft of property of a value of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(a),(b),(e)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2001). In the same proceeding, Coleman pleaded guilty in Cause No. 82052 to the state jail felony offense of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount less than one gram. Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(a),(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001). In each case, the trial court convicted Coleman and assessed a sentence of two years of confinement in a state jail facility. The trial court suspended imposition of the sentences and on December 18, 2000, placed Coleman on community supervision for three years. On April 6, 2001, Coleman pleaded "untrue" to allegations, contained in the State's motions to revoke community supervision, that she committed the offenses of public intoxication and possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, while on community supervision. The trial court found the allegation regarding possession of a controlled substance to be true. The trial court ordered Coleman to serve her two year sentences.   

    After the appeals were perfected, appellate counsel filed briefs 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 briefs conclude that the records present no arguable error that would support the appeals, a conclusion with which we concur. On September 20, 2001, Coleman 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). 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). Testimony from Officer Aaron LeWallen and other witnesses supported the State's allegation that Coleman violated the conditions of continued community supervision by possessing a controlled substance.   

    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 judgments.

    AFFIRMED.

    PER CURIAM



      Submitted on December 31, 2001

    Opinion Delivered January 9, 2002

    Do Not Publish



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