Tressie Leanna Butcher v. the State of Texas

2026-08-26

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments in both cases, finding no reversible error and concluding that the appeals are wholly frivolous.

Tressie Leanna Butcher pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation and unauthorized use of a vehicle under a plea agreement in which the trial court deferred adjudication and imposed community supervision. The State later filed a motion to revoke her probation based on alleged violations. Butcher admitted to five of the violations, the trial court revoked probation, and sentenced her to ten years' imprisonment on the burglary charge and two years in state jail on the vehicle charge, to be served concurrently.

Butcher appealed through counsel who filed an Anders brief concluding the appeals lacked merit and seeking permission to withdraw. The appellate court conducted a full review of the record and found no reversible error in either the trial court's acceptance of the guilty pleas, the probation revocation, or the sentencing. The court determined the appeals were wholly frivolous and declined to appoint new counsel to pursue further briefing.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether the guilty pleas were valid and properly accepted
Whether the probation revocation was proper
Whether the sentences imposed were lawful
Whether any reversible error existed in the trial court proceedings

Procedural posture

Butcher appealed her convictions and probation revocation to the Ninth Court of Appeals from the 252nd District Court in Jefferson County after the trial court revoked her community supervision and imposed prison sentences.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

NO. 09-25-00369-CR

NO. 09-25-00376-CR

TRESSIE LEANNA BUTCHER, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 24DCCR1732 and 24DCCR1733

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A grand jury indicted Appellant Tressie Leanna Butcher for one count of

burglary of a habitation, a second-degree felony, and one count of unauthorized use

of a vehicle, a state jail felony. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 30.02(a)(1), (c)(2)

(burglary of a habitation), 31.07 (unauthorized use of a motor vehicle). Butcher

pleaded guilty to both charges pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. The trial court

accepted her plea, deferred the adjudication of guilt, and placed Butcher on

community supervision for ten years on the burglary of a habitation charge, five

years of community supervision on the unauthorized use of a vehicle charge, and a

$500 fine on each count.

Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation

and an Amended Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation on both charges and

alleged Butcher violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision.

Butcher pleaded true to five of the alleged violations contained in the First Amended

Motion to Revoke Unadjudicated Probation and the trial court, having found that

Butcher entered pleas of true to the violations, revoked her probation. The trial court

sentenced Butcher to ten years’ imprisonment on the burglary of a habitation charge,

and two years in state jail on the unauthorized use of a vehicle charge, with the

sentences to run concurrently.

Butcher’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs presenting counsel’s

professional evaluation of the record and concluding that the appeals are frivolous;

he also filed motions to withdraw as counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On December 8,

2025, after Butcher’s counsel filed his briefs, we granted an extension of time for

Butcher to file a pro se brief, but Butcher filed no response.

The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that when a court of appeals receives

an Anders brief, an appellate court has two choices. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “It may determine that the appeal is wholly

frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds

no reversible error[;] [o]r, it may determine that arguable grounds for appeal exist

and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief

the issues.” Id. (citation omitted). The Court of Criminal Appeals has held that we

need not address the merits of issues raised in an Anders brief. Id.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, a court must conduct a full examination of

the record to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed the entire

record, and counsel’s briefs, and we have found no reversible error, and we conclude

the appeals are wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827–28. Therefore, we

find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the

appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We

affirm the trial court’s judgments. 1

AFFIRMED.

W. SCOTT GOLEMON

Chief Justice

Submitted on August 19, 2026

Opinion Delivered August 26, 2026

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.

Butcher may challenge our decision by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.