Joyce Acey v. The State of Texas Appeal from 251st District Court of Potter County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-14-00316-CR JOYCE MARIE ACEY, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 251st District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 67,658-C, Honorable Ana Estevez, Presiding February 5, 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Joyce Marie Acey, entered a plea of guilty to the offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements1 and, pursuant to a plea agreement was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of four years. Subsequently, the State of Texas filed a motion to adjudicate her guilty of the offense of failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. Appellant entered pleas of “not true” to two of the ten allegations and “true” to the other eight allegations. After 1 See Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. art. 62.102(c) (West Supp. 2014). hearing the evidence, the trial court found that all ten allegations were true. Thereafter, the trial court found appellant guilty of the primary offense and assessed her punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a period of five years. Appellant gave notice of appeal. We will affirm. Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of her motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that she has diligently reviewed the record, and in her opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that she has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and appropriately advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel has certified that she has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in preparation of a pro se response and a motion to seek a printed copy of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has not filed a response. By her Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any 2 arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.2 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send her client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 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.
