IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-17-00264-CR

CYNTHIA STALEY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23,333

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Cynthia Ann Staley pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to 

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in the amount of one gram or 

more but less than four grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112 (West 

2017). The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Staley on community 

supervision for five years. The State later moved to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. 

The motion alleged that Staley violated a condition of her community supervision 

because she admitted to her community supervision officer that she had used 
Staley v. State Page 2

methamphetamine. Staley pled “true” to the allegation. The trial court thereafter 

adjudicated Staley guilty and sentenced her to seven years’ imprisonment. This appeal 

ensued. We affirm.

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 

493 (1967), Staley’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to 

withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of 

error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements 

of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ 

points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts 

and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 

112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 

S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 

1978), Staley’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is 

no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he 

has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2) 

served a copy of the brief, counsel’s motion to withdraw, and the appellate record on 

Staley; and (3) informed Staley of her right to review the record and to file a pro se
Staley v. State Page 3

response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see 

also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, 

and Staley has not filed a pro se response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record 

and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See 

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of 

Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs 

and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the 

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

In accordance with Anders, Staley’s attorney has asked this Court for permission 

to withdraw as counsel for Staley. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must 

withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the 

appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the 

appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of 
Staley v. State Page 4

this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Staley and to advise her of her right to file a 

petition for discretionary review.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed June 20, 2018

Do not publish

[CR25]

 

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Staley wish to seek further review of this case by the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary 

review or must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must 

be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or from the date the last timely motion for rehearing 

was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for 

discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. 

Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules 

of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.