Opinion
No. 09-09-512-CR
Submitted on April 16, 2010.
Opinion Delivered April 28, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 07-01870. Affirmed.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and KREGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Sherian Dianne Cornwell was indicted for securing execution of a document by deception. Cornwell pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Cornwell guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Cornwell on community supervision for three years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Cornwell's unadjudicated community supervision. Cornwell pled "true" to one of the alleged violations of the terms of her community supervision. The trial court found that Cornwell violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Cornwell guilty of securing execution of a document by deception, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. Cornwell then filed this appeal. Cornwell'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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Cornwell filed a pro se response. The Court of Criminal Appeals directs that we not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) "that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error"; or (2) "that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues." Id. We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.