Vicky Elaine Celestine v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-05-418 CR
____________________
VICKY ELAINE CELESTINE, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 87316
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Vicky Celestine pled guilty to aggravated assault. The trial court deferred adjudication of Celestine's guilt, placed her on community supervision for six years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. The State filed a motion to revoke Celestine's unadjudicated community supervision. Celestine pled "true" to violating three of the conditions of the community supervision order. The trial court found that Celestine violated the conditions of her community supervision, found her guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and assessed punishment at twelve years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division.

On appeal, Celestine's counsel filed an Anders brief. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and presents a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in the appeal. See also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel provided Celestine with a copy of the brief, filed a motion to withdraw from the case, and notified Celestine of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response.

Celestine filed a pro se brief asserting six issues for our review. First, she asserts the trial judge waived formal reading of the indictment at the hearing on the State's motion to revoke probation without her consent. In her second and third issues, she complains of ineffective assistance of counsel at the hearing on the motion to revoke probation and on appeal. In her fourth issue, she maintains this Court lacks the authority to grant her court-appointed appellate counsel's motion to withdraw from the case. Fifth, she contends the trial court failed to conduct a separate punishment hearing after the trial court adjudicated guilt. Last, she asserts a double jeopardy claim because, according to Celestine, two trial courts set bail for the same charge in two different courts.

Upon receipt of an Anders brief from a defendant's court-appointed attorney, we must make an independent determination after conducting our own review of the record as to whether the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). In making this determination, we consider any pro se response filed by the appellant. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1. If we conclude that arguable grounds for appeal exist, we abate the appeal without addressing the issues raised in Celestine's pro se brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If, after our independent review of the entire record, we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous, we may affirm the trial court's judgment by issuing an opinion explaining that we have reviewed the record and have found no reversible error. See id. at 826-27.

Pursuant to Anders and Bledsoe, we have independently reviewed the clerk's record, the reporter's record, Celestine's appointed-counsel's Anders brief, and Celestine's pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. We agree with appellate counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit, and we find no reversible error in the record. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. (1)

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on December 27, 2006

Opinion Delivered May 23, 2007

Do not publish

 

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1. Celestine may pursue discretionary review on her own in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 n.6; Tex. R. App. P. 68.