Dorothy Clark Canfield v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 221st District Court of Montgomery County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-09-00095-CR
NO. 09-09-00096-CR
NO. 09-09-00097-CR
____________________
DOROTHY CLARK CANFIELD, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
_____________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 221st District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause Nos. 08-05-04528-CR, 08-05-04733-CR, and 08-05-04734-CR
_____________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dorothy Clark Canfield entered non-negotiated guilty pleas to an indictment for
theft of property or services of the value of at least $1,500 but less than $20,000. See
TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2009); TEX. PEN. CODE ANN.
§ 31.04(a), (e)(4) (Vernon Supp. 2009). In each case, the trial court convicted Canfield
and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. The trial
court ordered that the sentences be served concurrently.
1
On appeal, Canfield’s counsel filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional
evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are 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 December 17, 2009, we granted an extension of
time for the appellant to file a pro se brief. The appellant filed a pro se response.
We reviewed the appellate records and the pro se response, and we agree with
counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it
unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Bledsoe v.
State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.2
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on April 26, 2010
Opinion Delivered May 5, 2010
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
2
Appellant may challenge our decision in these cases by filing petitions for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. 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.