Kristie Marie Morgan Reyes v. The State of Texas Appeal from 196th District Court of Hunt County (memorandum opinion by chief justice iii morriss)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-16-00121-CR KRISTIE MARIE MORGAN REYES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 196th District Court Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 31,141 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION A jury convicted Kristie Marie Morgan Reyes of burglary of a habitation after hearing evidence that she had broken into her ex-father-in-law’s home to steal prescription pain medication. In accordance with the jury’s punishment assessment, the trial court sentenced Reyes to five years’ confinement, ordered her to pay a $1,500.00 fine, suspended both the sentence and fine, and placed her on community supervision for five years. Reyes appeals. Reyes’ appellate counsel filed a brief that outlines the procedural history of the case, provides a detailed summary of the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court proceedings, and states that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of Anders v. California, counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. In response to counsel’s Anders brief, Reyes has filed a pro se response in which she complains (1) that she was “re-indicted last minute,” (2) that her original bond was too high, (3) that the trial court called her by the wrong last name on one occasion, (4) that her sentence was too high because she had “never been in trouble & didn’t commit the crime,” and (5) that her trial was generally unfair. 2 We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the entire record, as well as Reyes’ pro se brief, and have determined that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit and is frivolous, we must either dismiss the appeal or affirm the trial court’s judgment. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1 Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: October 28, 2016 November 2, 2016 Do Not Publish Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. 1 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.
