Charlotte Carolyn Tillery v. The State of Texas--Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-09-00309-CR ____________________ CHARLOTTE CAROLYN TILLERY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 99865 MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Charlotte Carolyn Tillery pled guilty to felony theft. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Tillery guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Tillery on community supervision for three years, and assessed a fine of $500. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Tillery s unadjudicated community supervision. Tillery pled true to four violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found that Tillery violated the conditions of 1 her community supervision, found Tillery guilty of felony theft, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility, then suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Tillery on community supervision for three years. The State later filed a motion to revoke Tillery s second period of community supervision. Tillery pled true to five violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found that Tillery violated the conditions of her community supervision, revoked Tillery s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of eighteen months of confinement in a state jail facility. Tillery 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 September 10, 2009, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel s conclusion that no arguable issues support an 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.1 AFFIRMED. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See T EX. R. A PP. P. 68. 2 __________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on February 9, 2010 Opinion Delivered February 17, 2010 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 3
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.
