Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A grand jury indicted Tressie Leanna Butcher for burglary of a habitation, a second-degree felony, and unauthorized use of a vehicle, a state jail felony. Butcher pleaded guilty under a plea agreement. The trial court deferred adjudication and imposed ten years of community supervision for burglary, five years for unauthorized use of a vehicle, and a $500 fine on each count.
The State later moved to revoke Butcher’s unadjudicated probation, alleging violations of her community-supervision conditions. Butcher pleaded true to five alleged violations. The trial court revoked her probation and sentenced her to ten years’ imprisonment for burglary and two years in state jail for unauthorized use of a vehicle, with the sentences running concurrently.
The Court’s Holding
Butcher’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs stating that, after professionally evaluating the records, counsel considered both appeals frivolous. Counsel also moved to withdraw. Although the court gave Butcher additional time to submit a pro se brief, she filed no response.
The Ninth Court of Appeals independently examined the entire records and counsel’s briefs, as required after an Anders filing. It found no reversible error and concluded that both appeals were wholly frivolous. The court therefore declined to appoint new counsel to rebrief the cases and affirmed both trial-court judgments.
Key Takeaways
- An appellate court receiving an Anders brief must independently review the full record to determine whether any nonfrivolous ground for appeal exists.
- If that review reveals no reversible error and the appeal is wholly frivolous, the court may affirm without appointing new counsel to brief the merits.
- Butcher’s concurrent sentences of ten years for burglary of a habitation and two years for unauthorized use of a vehicle remain in effect.
Why It Matters
The memorandum opinion illustrates the procedure Texas appellate courts follow when appointed counsel concludes that a criminal appeal presents no arguable grounds. The court did not merely accept counsel’s assessment; it conducted its own review before finding the appeals wholly frivolous and affirming the judgments.