Latara Priestly v. State ( 2010 )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-09-00495-CR
Latara PRIESTLY,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas
Trial Court No. 07-1068-CR
Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 15, 2010
AFFIRMED
Latara Priestly pleaded guilty to three counts of forgery and was placed on three years
deferred adjudication community supervision. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke
Priestly’s community supervision and enter an adjudication of guilt, alleging Priestly had
violated the terms of her community supervision by, among other things, using drugs, failing to
report to her supervision officer, failing to maintain employment, failing to complete programs
ordered by the court, and neglecting to pay administrative fees and court costs. After a hearing
04-09-00495-CR
on the State’s motion, the trial court adjudicated Priestly guilty and sentenced her to two years
imprisonment. We affirm.
Priestly’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of
the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that
the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel provided Priestly with a copy of the brief and
informed Priestly of her right to review the record and file her own brief. See Nichols v. State,
954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176,
177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Priestly did not file a pro se brief.
After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and
without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed. Furthermore, we grant
appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d
at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Priestly wish 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 must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or
the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be
forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition
for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
-2-