Jacqueline Bailey v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court of Jasper County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ____________________ NO. 09-09-00339-CR ____________________ JACQUELINE BAILEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court Jasper County, Texas Trial Cause No. JC28604 MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Jacqueline Bailey1 of deadly conduct. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. ยง 22.05(a) (West 2003). The trial court sentenced Bailey to ninety days in jail, suspended imposition of all but ten days of such sentence, placed Bailey on community supervision for two years, assessed a fine of $1,000, and eighty hours of community service. Bailey s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1 Bailey is also known as Jacquline Bailey. 1 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel s brief presents his professional evaluation of the record that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced in this appeal. Counsel provided Bailey with a copy of this brief. In response, Bailey filed a pro se brief, essentially arguing that the evidence is factually and legally insufficient to support her conviction and that the authorities conduct toward her violated her Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. The appellate court need not address the merits of issues raised in Anders briefs or pro se responses. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In these circumstances, the Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we may determine either: (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that the court 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. We have independently reviewed the clerk s record and the reporter s record, the Anders brief, and the pro se response in this case, and we agree with Bailey s appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. See id. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Bailey s appeal. See id.; 2 compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court s judgment.2 AFFIRMED. ________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on March 30, 2011 Opinion Delivered May 18, 2011 Do not publish Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ. 2 Bailey may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. 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.
