Julie Ann Atwood v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 163rd District Court of Orange County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-10-00180-CR NO. 09-10-00181-CR ________________ JULIE ANN ATWOOD, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. B090768-R and B090771-R ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In an open plea, Julie Ann Atwood pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated and felony possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced Atwood to seven years in prison for driving while intoxicated and eighteen months in State jail for possession of a controlled substance. The trial court ordered Atwood s sentences to run concurrently. Atwood s appellate 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 1 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Atwood filed a pro se brief in response. The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Rather, an appellate court may determine either: (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error ; or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Id. We have determined that these appeals are wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk s records and the reporter s records, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgments.1 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on July 21, 2011 Opinion Delivered August 10, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ. 1 Atwood may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
