Tanisha Shauntel Lofton a/k/a Tanisha Johnson a/k/a Tanisha S. Johnson 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. 09-09-00449-CR ____________________ TANISHA SHAUNTEL LOFTON a/k/a TANISHA JOHNSON a/k/a TANISHA S. JOHNSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 98820 _____________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Tanisha Shauntel Lofton a/k/a Tanisha Johnson a/k/a Tanisha S. Johnson entered a plea of guilty to burglary of a building. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Lofton guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Lofton on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Lofton s unadjudicated community supervision. Lofton pled true to two violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found that Lofton violated the conditions of her community 1 supervision, found Lofton guilty of burglary of a building, and assessed punishment at twenty years of confinement. Lofton 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 February 11, 2010, 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 note that the trial court s judgment incorrectly recites that Lofton s offense is a second-degree felony. This Court has the authority to reform the trial court s judgment to correct a clerical error. Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Therefore, we delete 2nd degree felony from the section of the judgment entitled Degree and substitute state jail felony, sequenced prior felony convictions in its place. We affirm the trial court s judgment as reformed.1 AFFIRMED AS REFORMED. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 2 _____________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on June 8, 2010 Opinion Delivered June 23, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney 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.
