Kelli Anne Linscomb v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-11-00197-CR _________________ KELLI ANNE LINSCOMB, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-05764 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In carrying out a plea-bargain agreement, Kelli Anne Linscomb pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance, a state jail felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ยง 481.112 (West 2010).1 The trial court found Linscomb guilty, sentenced her to two years in state jail, suspended her sentence, placed her on community supervision for four years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Linscomb s community supervision. Linscomb pled true to one violation of her Because the statute s subsequent amendment does not affect the outcome of this appeal, we cite its current version. 1 1 community supervision. The trial court found that Linscomb violated the condition of her community supervision, revoked Linscomb s community supervision, and assessed punishment at eighteen months in state jail. Linscomb appealed. Linscomb s appellate counsel filed a brief presenting counsel s professional evaluation of the record, and the brief filed on Linscomb s behalf concludes that her 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 June 16, 2011, we granted an extension of time for Linscomb to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Linscomb. 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 Linscomb s appeal. Compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. ___________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on September 28, 2011 Opinion Delivered October 12, 2011 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ. 2 Linscomb may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
