Sheena Derise Harmon 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. 09-10-00352-CR ____________________ SHEENA DERISE HARMON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 09-06287 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Sheena Derise Harmon pleaded guilty to felony theft. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Harmon guilty, but deferred further proceedings, placed Harmon on community supervision for two years, and assessed a fine of $500. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Harmon s unadjudicated community supervision. Harmon entered pleas of true to two violations of the conditions of her community supervision. The trial court found that Harmon violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Harmon guilty of felony theft, and assessed punishment at two years of confinement in a state jail facility. 1 Harmon s appellate counsel filed a brief that presents counsel s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the 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 December 2, 2010, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant. 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 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. ________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice Submitted on March 22, 2011 Opinion Delivered March 23, 2011 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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. 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.
