Layla Nasiba Ruben v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-09-00073-CR
____________________
LAYLA NASIBA RUBEN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 08-03824
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Layla Nasiba Ruben 1 pled guilty to
aggravated assault. The trial court found the evidence was sufficient to find Ruben guilty,
but deferred finding her guilty, placed her on community supervision for seven years, and
assessed a fine of $1000.
The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Ruben’s
unadjudicated community supervision. Ruben pled “true” to one alleged violation of the
1
Both the indictment and the judgment refer to appellant as “Layla Ruben.”
1
terms of her community supervision. The trial court found that Ruben violated the conditions
of her community supervision, found her guilty, and assessed punishment at fifteen years of
confinement.
Ruben’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). On April 30, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief.
We received no response from the appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we
agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we
find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Compare
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.2
AFFIRMED.
_________________________________
CHARLES KREGER
Justice
Submitted on August 11, 2009
Opinion Delivered August 26, 2009
Do not publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
2
Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for
discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 68.
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.
