Stephanie Nicole Austin v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________

NO. 09-19-00193-CR __________________

STEPHANIE NICOLE AUSTIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 7th District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 007-0089-19 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

Stephanie Nicole Austin entered an open plea of guilty to one count alleging she delivered or manufactured a controlled substance (methamphetamine), in an amount of between four and two-hundred grams. After the trial court assessed a fifty- year sentence, Austin appealed. The attorney appointed to represent her in her appeal then filed a brief, in which he argues there are no nonfrivolous arguments he can raise to support Austin’s appeal.1 After reviewing the record, we agree with Austin’s attorney and find Austin’s appeal is frivolous.2

On appeal, Austin’s attorney filed a brief, which contains his professional evaluation of the record. In the brief, Austin’s attorney concludes Austin’s appeal is frivolous. 3 After Austin’s attorney sent Austin a copy of the brief, Austin filed a pro se response. In it, she alleged that her attorney failed to provide her with effective assistance of counsel in her trial. According to Austin, her attorney was ineffective because he failed to move to suppress the evidence police obtained in what Austin claims in her brief was an illegal search. Austin also argues she never voluntarily, intelligently, or knowingly pleaded guilty to possessing the meth that was the subject of her indictment. Last, Austin argues the trial court’s judgment should be reversed because her sentence fails to include what Austin characterizes in her pro se response was a statutorily mandated fine.

But given our finding that Austin’s appeal is frivolous, we need not require the trial court to appoint another attorney to re-brief her appeal.4 And since no arguable issues support the appeal, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

_________________________ HOLLIS HORTON Justice Submitted on March 24, 2021

Opinion Delivered May 5, 2021

Do Not Publish

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