Mary Genevive Bond v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-25-00482-CR
________________

MARY GENEVIVE BOND, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. F22-40508
________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant Mary Genevive Bond

(“Bond”) pleaded guilty to the state jail felony offense of fraudulent use of

identifying information. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 32.51(b)(1), (c)(1). The trial

court found Bond guilty and assessed her punishment at two years in state jail and

ordered her to pay restitution but suspended the confinement portion of Bond’s

1
sentence and placed her on community supervision for five years, with express

conditions.

Subsequently, prior to the expiration of the term of community supervision,

the State filed motions to revoke Bond’s community supervision. At the hearing on

the State’s second amended motion, Bond pleaded “true” to violating certain terms

of her community supervision order, and after hearing evidence, the trial court found

that Bond had violated the terms of her community supervision. The trial court

revoked Bond’s community supervision and sentenced her to two years in state jail.

On appeal, Bond’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 February 3, 2026, we notified Bond of her right to

file a pro se brief and notified her of the deadline for doing so, but we received no

response from Bond.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, this Court must conduct a full examination

of all the proceedings 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 we have found nothing that arguably would

support the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it

2
considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error

but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new

counsel to re-brief the appeal. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1991).

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT
Justice

Submitted on May 18, 2026
Opinion Delivered May 27, 2026
Do Not Publish

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

1
Bond may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition of
discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.
68.
3