Vera Leoma Kibbe v. State

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Do Not Publish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