## 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 114T H

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.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment wit h 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.

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 or2

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 evaluat ion 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 d ays 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 th i s 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 mus t 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must
be filed with the Texas Court of Cr iminal 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.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 th e 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 t he 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.