John Franklin Armstrong v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 22nd District Court of Comal County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 2003 » John Franklin Armstrong v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 22nd District Court of Comal County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 03-02-00211-CR

Case Date: 05/22/2003

Plaintiff: INES GONZALEZ GARCIA

Defendant: RAMIRO GARZA, AND J & R VALLEY OILFIELD SERVICES, INC.--Appeal from 206th District Court of Hidalgo

Preview:In The

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________
NO. 09-10-00448-CR NO. 09-10-00449-CR

_________________
RACHEL LEIGH EAKINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 359th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause Nos. 09-08-07946-CR and 07-08-08692-CR ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Rachel Leigh Eakins1 appeals her convictions for fraudulent possession of a controlled substance by prescription and driving while intoxicated, third or more offense. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Eakins entered a plea of guilty to both offenses. The trial court found Eakins guilty of fraudulent possession of a controlled substance by prescription, a third degree felony, and sentenced her to ten years of confinement. The trial court further found
1

Rachel Leigh Eakins is also known as Rachel Hoover. 1

Eakins guilty of driving while intoxicated, a third degree felony, and sentenced her to ten years of confinement to run concurrently with her fraudulent possession sentence. Eakins's appellate counsel filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel's brief presents his professional evaluation of the record and concludes there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. Counsel provided Eakins with a copy of this brief. We granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from Eakins. In response to an inquiry concerning attorney's fees of $3479 in the trial court's judgment in Cause No. 07-08-08692-CR, the State has informed this Court that they agree to a redaction from the judgment of that amount since the record does not reflect that the trial court addressed Eakins's ability to pay at the sentencing hearing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2010); Roberts v. State, 327 S.W.3d 880, 883-84 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2010, no pet.). We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and we agree with Eakins's appellate counsel that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief Eakins's appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); compare Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We modify the

2

judgment to delete the portion requiring that Eakins pay attorney's fees of $3479. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed.2 AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

___________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on August 22, 2011 Opinion Delivered August 31, 2011 Do not publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.

Eakins may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68. 3

2

Download 11822.pdf