Lynshuna Renee Nicole Alexander v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________
NO. 09-23-00280-CR
________________

LYNSHUNA RENEE NICOLE ALEXANDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F20-35600
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lynshuna Renee Nicole Alexander pled guilty to felony theft with prior theft

convictions, a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 31.03. The trial court

found the evidence sufficient to find Alexander guilty, but deferred an adjudication

of guilt and placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period

of two years and assessed a $250 fine.

1
The State filed a Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation. Alexander

pleaded “true” to violating two terms of the community supervision order. Having

found sufficient evidence to revoke Alexander’s community supervision, the trial

court found Alexander guilty of felony theft and assessed punishment at twelve

months of confinement in state jail. Alexander timely appealed.

Alexander’s appellate counsel filed an Anders brief that presents counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978). On April 12, 2024, we granted an extension of time for Alexander

to file a pro se brief. Alexander did not file a pro se brief in response.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of

the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record and counsel’s brief, and having found no reversible error, we conclude the

appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27. Therefore, we find

it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf.

2
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial

court’s judgment. 1

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS
Justice

Submitted on June 27, 2024
Opinion Delivered July 31, 2024
Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

1Alexander may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary

review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.1.
3