Tamasha Funt v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
__________________
NO. 09-20-00278-CR
NO. 09-20-00279-CR
__________________
TAMASHA FUNT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 17-27248, 17-27225
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Tamasha Funt pleaded guilty
to aggravated robbery and credit card abuse. In cause number 17-27248, the trial
court found the evidence sufficient to find Funt guilty of aggravated robbery, but
deferred further proceedings, placed Funt on community supervision for ten years,
and assessed a $1000 fine. In cause number 17-27225, the trial court found the
evidence sufficient to find Funt guilty of credit card abuse, but deferred further
1
proceedings, placed Funt on community supervision for five years, and assessed a
$500 fine.
Subsequently, the State filed motions to revoke Funt’s community
supervision. In both cases, Funt pleaded “true” to violating the terms of the
community supervision order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial
court found the evidence was sufficient in both cases to find that Funt violated the
terms of her community supervision. In cause number 17-27248, the trial court
revoked Funt’s community supervision, found Funt guilty of aggravated robbery,
and assessed punishment at eight years of confinement. In cause number 17-27225,
the trial court revoked Funt’s community supervision, found Funt guilty of credit
card abuse, and assessed punishment at eighteen months of confinement. The trial
court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.
Funt’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs that present counsel’s
professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are frivolous. See
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978). On July 23, 2021, we granted an extension of time for Funt to file
pro se briefs. We received no responses from Funt.
We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s
conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it
unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford
2
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s
judgments. 1
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
W. SCOTT GOLEMON
Chief Justice
Submitted on September 28, 2021
Opinion Delivered October 6, 2021
Do Not Publish
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
1
Funt may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
3