Latasha Etrantha Brown 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. 09-09-00482-CR ______________________ LATASHA ETRANTHA BROWN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-02774 ______________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION LaTasha Etrantha Brown appeals from the revocation of her unadjudicated community supervision. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Brown pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of unauthorized use of a vehicle. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. ยง 31.07 (Vernon 2003). The trial court concluded the evidence was sufficient to find Brown guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed her on community supervision for three years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Brown s community supervision. At the revocation hearing, she pleaded true to five violations of the 1 community supervision order. The trial court found that Brown violated those conditions, adjudicated her guilty of unauthorized use of a vehicle, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. A notice of appeal was filed. Brown s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief in which he concluded there were no arguable grounds of error. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 741-42, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Brown subsequently filed a pro se brief in which she presented issues challenging the judgment revoking her probation, adjudicating her guilt, and sentencing her to two years in a state facility. In her pro se brief, Brown presented various reasons why she did not comply with some of the community supervision requirements. She also asserted she did not authorize the appeal, received ineffective assistance of counsel, did not receive credit for time spent in jail prior to her plea, and received a sentence that was too harsh. 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, 82627 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). As the Court explained in Bledsoe, 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. In Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009), the Court held that when a court of appeals finds no issues of arguable merit 2 in an Anders brief, it may explain why the issues have no arguable merit. Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 764. The provision of analysis [by the appellate court] does not necessarily imply that there is arguable merit that would necessitate appointment of counsel to brief the issues. Id. at 767. We have reviewed the record in this case, and we determine that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently examined the clerk s record and the reporter s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. at 766-67. An appellate court may not consider factual assertions that are outside the record . . . . Whitehead v. State, 130 S.W.3d 866, 872 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). 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. ___________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on July 2, 2010 Opinion Delivered July 7, 2010 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68. 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.
