Jerri Renee Parrish v. the State of Texas ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-20-00084-CR
__________________
JERRI RENEE PARRISH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 17-28313
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
To carry out the plea agreement Jerri Renee Parrish made with the State, the
trial court found Parrish guilty of robbery, assessed a ten-year sentence, but then
suspended the sentence and signed an order placing Parrish on community
supervision for ten years.1 Over a year later, the State moved to revoke the
1
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (Robbery).
1
community-supervision order, alleging Parrish had violated five conditions of the
order.
When the trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke,
Parrish pleaded “true” to two of the allegations in the State’s motion. After Parrish
pleaded true to violating the order, the trial court granted the motion and then
sentenced Parrish to prison for eight years. Even though Parrish admitted in the
hearing to having violated two of the conditions of the community-supervision order,
she nonetheless filed a pro se notice of appeal after the trial court signed the
judgment and ordered her sentence to be executed.
After Parrish appealed, the attorney the trial court appointed to represent her
on the appeal filed a brief in her appeal. In the brief, Parrish’s court-appointed
attorney argues that Parrish’s appeal is frivolous.2 The Court’s records also reflect
that Parrish’s attorney sent Parrish a letter advising that she had the right to file a pro
se brief. The attorney’s letter states that the attorney sent Parrish a copy of the
reporter’s record and the clerk’s record in her case. While Parrish could have filed a
pro se response, the Court’s records do not show she did so.
We have independently reviewed the records and counsel’s brief. Based on
our review, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that Parrish’s appeal is frivolous.
2
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
2
Therefore, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-brief
Parrish’s appeal.3 Because no arguable issues support Parrish’s appeal, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.4
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on January 24, 2022
Opinion Delivered March 23, 2022
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
3
Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
4
Parrish may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3