Melissa Stone Prentice v. State ( 2015 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-14-00430-CR
____________________
MELISSA STONE PRENTICE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 258th District Court
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 21960
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, court-appointed appellate counsel representing Melissa Stone
Prentice submitted a brief that contends no arguable grounds can be advanced to
support arguments that would result in our reversing the trial court’s judgment. The
judgment being appealed reflects that Prentice was convicted of driving while
intoxicated, third or more offense. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(b)(2) (West
1
Supp. 2014). 1 Based on our review of the records, we agree with appellate counsel
that no arguable issues exist to support Prentice’s appeal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967).
Prentice pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, third or more offense. See
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 49.09(b)(2). The trial court found Prentice guilty of
driving while intoxicated, sentenced her to ten years in prison, and assessed a
$2,500 fine. After pronouncing sentence, the trial court suspended the sentence,
and placed Prentice on probation for ten years.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion alleging that Prentice violated several
provisions of the order governing the terms of her probation. Prentice pled “not
true” to the allegations in the State’s motion. After conducting an evidentiary
hearing, the trial court found several of the allegations true and then revoked the
order used to place Prentice on probation. After setting aside the order, the trial
court rendered judgment, requiring that Prentice serve a sentence of ten years in
prison.
In her appeal, Prentice’s appellate counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s
professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Prentice’s counsel concludes that
Prentice’s appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573
1
We cite to the current version of the Texas Penal Code, as any amendments
to this section do not affect this appeal.
2
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension to allow Prentice
additional time to file a pro se brief; however, she did not respond.
After reviewing the appellate records and the Anders brief filed by Prentice’s
counsel, we agree with counsel’s conclusions that any appeal would be frivolous.
Consequently, we need not order the appointment of new counsel to re-brief
Prentice’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.
1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 2
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on February 20, 2015
Opinion Delivered March 25, 2015
Do Not Publish
Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
2
Prentice may challenge our decision in her appeal by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3