NO. 12-18-00081-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KRYSTAL LEE BROWN, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Krystal Lee Brown appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating her guilty of aggravated 

assault with a deadly weapon. 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 aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 

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

finding of guilt and placed her on community supervision for a term of eight years. Subsequently, 

the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. Appellant pleaded “true” to one alleged violation of 

her community supervision conditions and “not true” to the four remaining allegations. After a 

hearing, the trial court found all the allegations true, found Appellant “guilty,” and assessed her 

punishment at imprisonment for fourteen years. This appeal followed.

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 
2

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 the date of this court’s judgment or the date 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.

Opinion delivered January 16, 2019.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

 

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.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 16, 2019

NO. 12-18-00081-CR

KRYSTAL LEE BROWN,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0779-17)

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.