NO. 12-17-00401-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DANNA LYNN BUSBY, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 173RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Danna Lynn Busby appeals her conviction for murder. 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 murder and pleaded “not guilty.” The matter 

proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged, and the matter proceeded 

to a bench trial on punishment. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment 

for thirty 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 states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the 

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In 

compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the 
2

case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1

We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel 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 and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

As a result of our disposition of this case, 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 petition for discretionary review pro se. 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 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 

n.22.

Opinion delivered October 10, 2018.

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. See Kelly v. State, 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

OCTOBER 10, 2018

NO. 12-17-00401-CR

DANNA LYNN BUSBY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR16-0427-173)

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.