Latara Priestly v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 25th Judicial District Court of Guadalupe County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-09-00495-CR Latara PRIESTLY, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 07-1068-CR Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 15, 2010 AFFIRMED Latara Priestly pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery and was placed on three years deferred adjudication community supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Priestly s community supervision and enter an adjudication of guilt, alleging Priestly had violated the terms of her community supervision by, among other things, using drugs, failing to report to her supervision officer, failing to maintain employment, failing to complete programs ordered by the court, and neglecting to pay administrative fees and court costs. After a hearing 04-09-00495-CR on the State s motion, the trial court adjudicated Priestly guilty and sentenced her to two years imprisonment. We affirm. Priestly s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Priestly with a copy of the brief and informed Priestly of her right to review the record and file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Priestly did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant appellate counsel s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Priestly wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice DO NOT PUBLISH -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
