Regina Kaye Vanwinkle A/K/A Regina Thomplins A/K/A Regina Vanwinkle A/K/A Shayna Kaye Coleman v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                         In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    ___________________
    NO. 09-13-00481-CR
    ___________________
    REGINA KAYE VANWINKLE,
    A/K/A REGINA THOMPLINS,
    A/K/A REGINA VANWINKLE,
    A/K/A SHAYNA KAYE COLEMAN, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    __________________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
    Jefferson County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 11-11801
    __________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    In this appeal, counsel for Regina Kaye Vanwinkle,1 the appellant, filed a
    brief stating that there are no arguable points of error that would allow Vanwinkle
    to obtain relief from her conviction. After reviewing the record, we agree that no
    Regina Kaye Vanwinkle is also known as Regina Thomplins, Regina
    1
    Vanwinkle, and Shayna Kaye Coleman.
    1
    arguable issues support Vanwinkle’s appeal. See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    (1967).
    In carrying out a plea agreement, Vanwinkle pled guilty to felony theft. See
    Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03 (West Supp. 2013).2 Under the terms of
    Vanwinkle’s plea agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of
    Vanwinkle’s guilt and placed Vanwinkle on community supervision for five years.
    Subsequently, by motion, the State asked the trial court to revoke its
    community supervision order and to find Vanwinkle guilty of felony theft. At the
    motion to revoke hearing, after Vanwinkle pled true to committing an additional
    theft while on community supervision, the trial court found that Vanwinkle
    violated a term of the trial court’s deferred adjudication order, revoked
    Vanwinkle’s unadjudicated probation, found Vanwinkle guilty of felony theft, and
    assessed a sentence of two years in state jail.
    On appeal, Vanwinkle’s counsel filed a brief presenting counsel’s
    professional evaluation of the record. The brief contains counsel’s conclusion that
    Vanwinkle’s appeal is frivolous. See 
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; High v. State, 
    573 S.W.2d 807
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). We granted an extension of time to allow
    2
    The changes made to this statute following the commission of Vanwinkle’s
    theft do not affect the outcome of this appeal and thus, we cite to the current
    version of the statute.
    2
    Vanwinkle to file a pro se brief. Vanwinkle did not file a pro se brief, but she did
    file a letter requesting that we reduce her sentence by six months.
    After reviewing the appellate record, Vanwinkle’s letter, and the trial court’s
    judgment, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that no arguable issues support
    Vanwinkle’s appeal. Therefore, we need not order the appointment of new counsel
    to re-brief Vanwinkle’s appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 511 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 1991). Because no arguable issues support Vanwinkle’s appeal, we
    affirm the trial court’s judgment. 3
    AFFIRMED.
    ___________________________
    HOLLIS HORTON
    Justice
    Submitted on April 1, 2014
    Opinion Delivered April 9, 2014
    Do Not Publish
    Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
    3
    Vanwinkle may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for
    discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-13-00481-CR

Filed Date: 4/9/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015