NUMBER 13-17-00559-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

TRAIMANE LEBLANC KETTLES, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 264th District Court 

of Bell County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Contreras, Longoria, and Hinojosa

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras

Appellant Traimane LeBlanc Kettles pleaded guilty to possession of 

methamphetamine, a controlled substance, in an amount less than one gram, a state-jail

felony, and she was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. See TEX.

HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.102(6), .115(b) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st 
2

C.S.). The State later filed a motion to revoke her community supervision. The trial court 

found the alleged violations in the motion to be true, revoked appellant’s community 

supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to eleven months in the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division. Appellant appealed, and her courtappointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief stating there are no arguable 

grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm. 

I. ANDERS BRIEF1

Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support 

thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found 

no non-frivolous grounds for appeal. See id.; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. 

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders as it 

presents a thorough, professional evaluation of the record showing why there are no 

arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 

n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not 

specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide 

record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal 

authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex. App.—Corpus 

Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) 

(en banc).

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d at 813, and Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel carefully discussed why, under 

 

1 This case is before this Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a 

docket-equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 73.001 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.).
3

controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court’s judgments. Appellant’s 

counsel has also informed this Court that he has: (1) notified appellant that he has filed 

an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided appellant with copies of both 

filings; (3) informed appellant of her rights to file a pro se response,2to review the record 

preparatory to filing that response, and to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant

with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to file the 

motion in this Court. See Anders, 386, U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319–20; see 

also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 609 n.23. More than adequate time has passed, and 

appellant has not filed a pro se response. 

II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW 

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the 

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and we have found no 

reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) 

(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the 

issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, 

the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 47.1.”); 

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. 

 

2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with 

the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the 

court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the 

case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n. 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 
4

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, appellant’s counsel has asked this Court for 

permission to withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffrey v. State, 903 S.W.3d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

1995, no pet.) (“[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from 

representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must 

file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the 

appeal is frivolous.”) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

We order counsel to send a copy of this opinion and judgment to appellant, and to 

advise her of her right to file any petition for discretionary review within five days of the 

date of this opinion.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

DORI CONTRERAS

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

2nd day of August, 2018.

 

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If appellant seeks further review by the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se 

petition for discretionary review. 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 or timely motion for en banc 

reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. A petition for discretionary 

review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals, see id. R. 68.3(a), and must comply 

with the requirements of the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.