Crystal Kay Morris 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. 09-22-00342-CR __________________ CRYSTAL KAY MORRIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 15-21580 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant Crystal Kay Morris pleaded guilty to the offense of failure to stop and render aid, a third-degree felony. See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. § 550.021. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Morris guilty of the offense of failure to stop and render aid but deferred further proceedings, placed Morris on community supervision for ten years, and assessed a $1000 fine. 1 The State filed a Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation. Morris pleaded “true” to violating the terms of the community supervision order. The trial court revoked Morris’s community supervision, found Morris guilty of failing to stop and render aid, and assessed punishment at five years of confinement but suspended the sentence and placed Morris on community supervision for ten years and assessed a $1000 fine. Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision, alleging that Morris committed a new offense and administrative violations. Morris pleaded “true” to three administrative violations and “untrue” to the allegation of the new offense. After conducting an evidentiary hearing on the allegation that Morris assaulted a disabled individual, the trial court found the allegations regarding the new offense and Morris’s failure to report to be “true,” found the evidence was sufficient Morris violated the terms of her community supervision, revoked Morris’s community supervision, and assessed punishment at four years of confinement. Morris’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On March 27, 2023, we granted an extension of time for Morris to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Morris. 2 We have 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 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. 1 AFFIRMED. _________________________ W. SCOTT GOLEMON Chief Justice Submitted on July 5, 2023 Opinion Delivered July 12, 2023 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ. 1Morris may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See 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.
