Tamasha Funt v. The State of Texas Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-20-00278-CR NO. 09-20-00279-CR __________________ TAMASHA FUNT, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 17-27248, 17-27225 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, appellant Tamasha Funt pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery and credit card abuse. In cause number 17-27248, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Funt guilty of aggravated robbery, but deferred further proceedings, placed Funt on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1000 fine. In cause number 17-27225, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Funt guilty of credit card abuse, but deferred further 1 proceedings, placed Funt on community supervision for five years, and assessed a $500 fine. Subsequently, the State filed motions to revoke Funt’s community supervision. In both cases, Funt pleaded “true” to violating the terms of the community supervision order. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the evidence was sufficient in both cases to find that Funt violated the terms of her community supervision. In cause number 17-27248, the trial court revoked Funt’s community supervision, found Funt guilty of aggravated robbery, and assessed punishment at eight years of confinement. In cause number 17-27225, the trial court revoked Funt’s community supervision, found Funt guilty of credit card abuse, and assessed punishment at eighteen months of confinement. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Funt’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs that present counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On July 23, 2021, we granted an extension of time for Funt to file pro se briefs. We received no responses from Funt. We have reviewed the appellate records, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeals. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford 2 v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on September 28, 2021 Opinion Delivered October 6, 2021 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ. Funt may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3 1
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.
