Danna Christine Houk a/k/a Danna C. Houk 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. 09-10-00570-CR _________________ DANNA CHRISTINE HOUK A/K/A DANNA C. HOUK, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 10-08574 _______________________________________________________________ ___ ______ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Danna Christine Houk a/k/a Danna C. Houk pleaded guilty to attempting to possess a controlled substance by fraud. The trial court found Houk guilty and assessed punishment at ten years of confinement, then suspended imposition of sentence and placed Houk on community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Houk s community supervision. Houk pleaded true to one violation of the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court found that Houk violated the terms of the community 1 supervision order, revoked Houk s community supervision, and imposed a sentence of ten years of confinement. Houk 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 January 20, 2011, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from the appellant. We have 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. ________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY Justice Submitted on April 29, 2011 Opinion Delivered May 11, 2011 Do Not Publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 1 Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review.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.
