Katieya Miyae Haynes v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00084-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KATIEYA MIYAE HAYNES, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Katieya Miyae Haynes appeals following the revocation of her deferred adjudication
community supervision. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436
S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with credit card abuse of an elderly person and
pleaded “guilty.” 1 The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed her on
community supervision for four years.
Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt, alleging that she
violated certain terms and conditions thereof. Specifically, the State contended that Appellant
violated the terms of her community supervision, in pertinent part, because she allegedly
committed other criminal offenses, failed to report those offenses and her release from jail within
the specified time frame, did not attend required Alcoholic Anonymous meetings, failed to
complete her community service requirements, and failed to make required payments.

1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.31(d) (West 2016).
At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to some of the alleged
violations. The State abandoned four of the allegations, namely that Appellant committed the
offenses of driving while intoxicated and failure to identify while on community supervision, and
that she possessed and consumed alcoholic beverages on the date of those offenses. In support of
its motion, the State elicited testimony from Smith County Adult Probation Department Court
Officer Halie Smart establishing the remaining violations. Appellant and her mother also testified.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms and
conditions of her community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion. Specifically, the trial
court found the allegations in the State’s motion to be “true” that she failed to: (1) submit to a
random urinalysis, (2) perform community service as ordered, (3) report contact with law
enforcement concerning her arrest on another offense within forty-eight hours, (4) appear in person
to her community supervision officer within forty-hours after being released from jail for another
arrest, (5) pay various court-ordered community supervision fees, and (6) attend Alcoholics
Anonymous meetings as ordered by the court. Thereafter, it revoked Appellant’s community
supervision, adjudicated her “guilty” as originally charged, and sentenced her to imprisonment for
four years. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. She further relates that she is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the
case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 2
We likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

2
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file her own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired
and no pro se brief has been filed.

2
CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having
done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she either must retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion
or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with
the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
408 n.22.

Opinion delivered November 21, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 21, 2023

NO. 12-23-00084-CR

KATIEYA MIYAE HAYNES,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0065-21)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.

By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.