-
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-17-00469-CR ____________________ VERA LEOMA KIBBE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15-22531 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Vera Leoma Kibbe pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated. The trial court found Kibbe guilty and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement, then suspended imposition of sentence, placed Kibbe on community supervision for five years, and assessed a $1000 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Kibbe’s community supervision. Kibbe pleaded “true” to two violations of the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court found that Kibbe violated the terms of the 1 community supervision order, revoked Kibbe’s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of ten years of confinement.1 Kibbe’s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738(1967); High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807(Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On February 27, 2018, we granted an extension of time for Kibbe to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Kibbe. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. ______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice 1 We note that the trial court’s written Judgment Revoking Community Supervision incompletely recites the trial court findings as “True” to counts three and four. The reporter’s record from the hearing on the motion to revoke Kibbe’s community supervision reflects that the trial court found counts one, two, three, and four to be “true.” 2 Kibbe may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 Submitted on June 19, 2018 Opinion Delivered July 11, 2018 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 09-17-00469-CR
Filed Date: 7/11/2018
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/13/2018