1

NOS. 12-09-00285-CR

 12-09-00286-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CITERIKA SHAY CALDWELL, ' APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Citerika Shay Caldwell appeals her convictions for burglary of a habitation and credit card 

or debit card abuse. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief asserting 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 dismiss the appeal.

 

BACKGROUND

Appellant pleaded guilty to the offenses of burglary of a habitation and credit card or debit 

card abuse.1 As charged, the burglary offense was a second degree felony, and the credit card or 

debit card abuse offense was a state jail felony. Appellant entered into a plea agreement with the 

State in which she received a sentence of ten years of imprisonment for the burglary offense and 

two years of confinement in a state jail for the credit card case. Pursuant to the agreement, those 

sentences would be suspended, and Appellant would be placed on community supervision. 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 30.02(c)(2), 32.31(d) (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2009). 
2

The trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Appellant on November 19, 

2008. On July 2, 2009, the State filed a motion alleging that Appellant had failed to adhere to the 

conditions of her community supervision and asking the trial court to revoke her suspended 

sentence. The trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion. The State abandoned three of the 

allegations in each of the petitions. Appellant pleaded true to the remaining allegations in the 

State’s motion including the allegations that she failed to pay various fees, associated with a felon, 

left the county, and consumed a controlled substance. The trial court found those allegations to be 

true, revoked the previously suspended sentence, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for 

eight years on the burglary charge and confinement for fifteen months on the credit card charge. 

This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel 

states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the 

facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1978), counsel=s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural 

history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for 

appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 

109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have likewise reviewed the record for 

reversible error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal 

is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we 

dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408B09 (“After the completion of these 

four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the 

attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be 

plausible grounds for appeal.”).

Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the 
3

opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his 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 further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either 

retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last 

timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. 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; In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 21, 2010.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)