Opinion
09-23-00280-CR
07-31-2024
LYNSHUNA RENEE NICOLE ALEXANDER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Do Not Publish
Submitted on June 27, 2024
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F20-35600
Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KENT CHAMBERS, Justice.
Lynshuna Renee Nicole Alexander pled guilty to felony theft with prior theft convictions, a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Alexander guilty, but deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of two years and assessed a $250 fine.
The State filed a Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation. Alexander pleaded "true" to violating two terms of the community supervision order. Having found sufficient evidence to revoke Alexander's community supervision, the trial court found Alexander guilty of felony theft and assessed punishment at twelve months of confinement in state jail. Alexander timely appealed.
Alexander's appellate counsel filed an Anders 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 April 12,2024, we granted an extension of time for Alexander to file a pro se brief. Alexander did not file a pro se brief in response.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief, and having found no reversible error, we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. 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.
Alexander may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1.
AFFIRMED.