NO. 12-18-00296-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

PAKISHA DAVETTE BRADLEY, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Pakisha Davette Bradley appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking her 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 driving while intoxicated with a child passenger. 

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, she pleaded “guilty,” and the trial court assessed her 

sentence at imprisonment for two years, suspended for a term of five years. Subsequently, the State 

filed a motion to revoke community supervision alleging that Appellant drove a vehicle while her 

driver’s license was suspended. Appellant stipulated to evidence of the allegation and pleaded 

“true.” After a hearing, at which there was no testimony as to the allegation in the State’s motion, 

the trial court found the allegation true and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for 

eighteen months. This appeal followed.
2

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 relates that he has reviewed the record and found no reversible error or 

jurisdictional defects. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 

[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating 

why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.1

We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the 

record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error.

CONCLUSION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), 

Appellant’s counsel has 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, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial 

court.

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 must either 

retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a pro se 

petition for discretionary review. 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(a). 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 Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

 1 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified 

Appellant of his 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. 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.
3

Opinion delivered September 4, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 4, 2019

NO. 12-18-00296-CR

PAKISHA DAVETTE BRADLEY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0637-18)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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.