Brenda Elaine King v. The State of Texas Appeal from 22nd District Court of Hays County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-14-00240-CR Brenda Elaine King, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-12-1083, HONORABLE WILLIAM R. HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal pursuant to Anders v. California.1 Appellant Brenda Elaine King pleaded guilty to the offense of arson.2 As part of her plea agreement, King signed a stipulation of evidence in which she admitted that she had intentionally set fire to an apartment building as alleged in the indictment. At the plea hearing, the district court found the evidence sufficient to support a finding of guilt, took the matter under advisement subject to a presentence investigation report, and reset the case for sentencing. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, during which no additional evidence was offered, the district court sentenced King to 10 years’ imprisonment. This appeal followed. King’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of 1 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 See Tex. Penal Code § 28.02(a). Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.3 Counsel has certified to the Court that he has provided a copy of the motion and brief to King, advised King of her right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied King with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.4 In response, King has filed a short pro se brief and supplemental brief in which she complains generally of ineffective assistance of counsel, what she considers to be a disproportionate sentence, and various other actions in the proceedings below that she perceives to be “illegal.” We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se briefs. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. __________________________________________ Bob Pemberton, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Field Affirmed Filed: August 18, 2015 Do Not Publish 3 See 386 U.S. at 744-45; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). 4 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 2
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.
