Debrah Elizabeth East v. the State of Texas
Docket 06-25-00147-CR
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 06-25-00147-CR
Appeal from adjudication and sentencing following revocation of deferred-adjudication community supervision in a state jail felony possession case
Summary
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment that had adjudicated Debrah Elizabeth East guilty of possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine after she violated terms of deferred adjudication community supervision. The State proved she used controlled substances and failed to complete restitution; after a hearing the trial court imposed a nine-month state jail sentence. Appellate counsel found no nonfrivolous issues and filed an Anders brief; the appeals court independently reviewed the record, concluded the appeal was frivolous, and affirmed, granting counsel permission to withdraw.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court erred in finding the State proved violations of community supervision (use of controlled substances and failure to complete restitution).
- Whether the record contained any nonfrivolous appellate issues warranting reversal of the adjudication and sentence.
Court's Reasoning
Appellate counsel submitted an Anders brief concluding there were no arguable grounds for relief, and the court independently reviewed the full appellate record. The court found the State’s allegations were supported by evidence heard at the revocation hearing, and no reversible error appeared in the proceedings. Because the court concluded the appeal was frivolous, it affirmed the trial court’s adjudication and sentence and allowed counsel to withdraw.
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738 (1967)
- In re Schulman252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
- Bledsoe v. State178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005)
Parties
- Appellant
- Debrah Elizabeth East
- Appellee
- The State of Texas
- Judge
- Charles van Cleef
Key Dates
- Date Submitted
- 2026-03-17
- Date Decided
- 2026-04-17
- Counsel mailed Anders brief and motion to appellant
- 2026-01-20
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider petition for discretionary review
If pursuing further review, file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days of this opinion or retain counsel to do so.
- 2
Consult criminal defense counsel
Speak with an attorney promptly to evaluate grounds for further appellate review or postconviction relief and to meet any filing deadlines.
- 3
Comply with sentence and supervision orders
If no further review is filed, ensure compliance with incarceration and any post-sentence supervision or administrative requirements.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Ms. East violated community supervision and upheld her nine-month state jail sentence.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- This decision directly affects Debrah Elizabeth East; it leaves her adjudicated guilty and sentenced as ordered by the trial court.
- Can this decision be reviewed further?
- Yes. East may seek further review by filing a petition for discretionary review to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days or retain counsel to do so.
- Why didn’t the appeals court find any reversible error?
- Appellate counsel and the court independently reviewed the record and determined the evidence supported the revocation and there were no nonfrivolous legal issues to challenge.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-25-00147-CR
DEBRAH ELIZABETH EAST, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 402nd District Court
Wood County, Texas
Trial Court No. 24,958-2022
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Debrah Elizabeth East pled guilty to possession of less than one gram of
methamphetamine, a state jail felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(b)
(Supp.). Pursuant to her plea bargain with the State, the trial court placed East on deferred
adjudication community supervision for three years. Within that time, the State alleged that East
violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision by using controlled substances
and by failing to complete her community supervision restitution as ordered. After an
evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the State’s allegations true, adjudicated East’s guilt, and
sentenced her to nine months’ confinement in State jail. East appeals.
East’s attorney has filed a brief stating that she reviewed the record and found no
genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural
history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the trial court
proceedings. Since counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of
Anders v. California. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503,
509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978). Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this
appeal.
On January 20, 2026, counsel mailed to East copies of the brief, the motion to withdraw,
and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record lacking only East’s signature. East was
2
informed of her rights to review the record and file a pro se response. On January 20, we
informed East that her pro se motion for access to the appellate record was due on or before
February 5. By letter dated February 24, this Court informed East that the case would be set for
submission on March 17, and that her pro se response was due on or before that date. We
received neither a pro se response from East nor a motion requesting an extension of time in
which to file such a response.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue
supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In
the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial
court’s judgment. Id.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.1
Charles van Cleef
Justice
Date Submitted: March 17, 2026
Date Decided: April 17, 2026
Do Not Publish
1
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, the appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro
se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from
either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court,
see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P.
68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.4.
3