## NO. 12

- 18

- 00296

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

PAKISHA DAVETTE BRAD LEY,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT CO URT

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.

B ACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated with a child passenger.

Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, she pleaded “g uilty,” 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 w as 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 punishmen t at imprisonment for

eighteen months. This appeal followed.2 A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA

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 evalua tion 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.

C ONCLUSION

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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 re view. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2(a). Any petition for discretiona ry review must

be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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.3 d 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 appella te 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 BRAD LEY,
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

j udgment.

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

.