Randy Webber v. The State of Texas Appeal from 85th District Court of Brazos County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-21-00055-CR NO. 09-21-00056-CR ________________ RANDY WEBBER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 85th District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 11-05154-CRF-85 and 11-05153-CRF-85 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to plea bargain agreements, Appellant Randy Webber pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of marijuana in an amount between four ounces and five pounds, a state jail felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(a), (b)(3). In each case, the trial court placed Webber on community supervision for five years, ordered payment of court costs, and ordered Webber to pay restitution of $140. In 1 cause number 11-05153-CRF-85, the trial court also ordered Webber to pay a $1,000 fine. Subsequently, the State moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt in both causes during the community supervision term based on multiple violations. Webber also stipulated that a warrant on the motion to proceed was issued during the deferred adjudication period. Webber pleaded “true” to violating multiple terms of the community supervision orders. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Webber violated the terms of his community supervision, adjudicated Webber guilty of the two counts of possession of a controlled substance and imposed a sentence of eighteen months of confinement in each case to run concurrently. Webber’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous.1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On August 18, 2021, we notified Webber that he could file a pro se brief on or before October 18, 2021. We have received no response from Webber. We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support the appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order Webber filed his appeal with the Tenth Court of Appeals. The Texas Supreme Court, however, transferred the appeal to the Ninth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket-equalization order. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001. 1 2 appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. ________________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on February 23, 2022 Opinion Delivered April 6, 2022 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, 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.
