Veronica Randall v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00084-CR __________________ VERONICA RANDALL, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 18-29579 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The State indicted Veronica Randall for Felony Theft, a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03(e)(4)(D). On November 26, 2018, Russell pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement and true to one enhancement paragraph. On February 11, 2019, after waiving her right to a jury trial, the trial court held a bench hearing and sentenced Russell to one-year confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The trial court certified that this was 1 not a plea-bargain case and Russell had the right of appeal. Russell timely filed a notice of appeal. The attorney appointed to represent Russell in her appeal filed an Anders brief which asserted that the attorney diligently reviewed the record and found no meritorious claims on which to appeal Russell’s sentence and that any appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 810–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel served Russell with a copy of the Anders brief filed on her behalf. This Court notified Russell of her right to file a pro se response, as well as the deadline for doing so. This Court did not receive a pro se response. We have independently reviewed the record, and we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (stating that the reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist). The Court concludes it is unnecessary for us to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief this appeal. Cf. id. As no arguable grounds exist to support the appeal, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1 1 Russell may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 2 AFFIRMED. _________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on November 26, 2019 Opinion Delivered December 11, 2019 Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 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.
