Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-15-2019

Case Style:

Samantha Marie DeGraaff v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 03-19-00008-CR

Judge: Chari L. Kelly


Plaintiff's Attorney: Mr. Bob D. Odom
The Honorable Stacey M. Soule
The Honorable Henry L. Garza

Defendant's Attorney: Mr. Tim B. Copeland


MoreLaw Suites Virtual Offices
Office from Home and Make More Money918-582-3993

Appellant Samantha Marie DeGraaff was placed on deferred adjudication
community supervision for a period of ten years after pleading guilty to the offense of
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.02. The State subsequently
filed three motions to adjudicate DeGraaff’s guilt based on alleged violations of the terms of her
community supervision. In response to each motion, DeGraaff pleaded true to the violations of
her community supervision as alleged in the State’s motions. Following hearings on the first and
second motions to adjudicate, the trial court modified the terms and conditions of DeGraaff’s
community supervision in lieu of adjudication on the offense of aggravated assault.1 In response
to the State’s third motion to adjudicate, the trial court found that DeGraaff violated the
conditions of her community supervision and granted the State’s motion. The court adjudicated
1 The trial court granted the motion and adjudicated DeGraaff’s guilt with respect to a related charge of state jail theft and assessed her 200 days’ confinement with credit for time already served.

DeGraaff guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, revoked her community
supervision, and assessed her punishment at five years’ incarceration in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice-Institutional Division.
Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported
by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the
requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86-87 (1988).
Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that he has provided copies of
the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record
and file a pro se brief; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the
appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. Smith, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at
766. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response or requested an extension of time to file a

Outcome: We have conducted an independent review of the record, including appellate
counsel’s brief, and find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and the appeal is frivolous.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. The judgment adjudicating guilt is

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2019 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.