## NO. 12

- 15

- 00095

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GLYNDA DENISE MORROW
, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM O PINION
PER CURIAM

Glynda Denise Morrow appeals her conviction for intoxication manslaughter. 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 pleaded not guilty to the offense of intoxication manslaughter. The jury found

Appellant guilty of committing intoxication manslaughter with a deadly weapon, i.e. , a vehicle. The

jury assessed a punishment of imprisonment for ten years and a $5,000 fine.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA
Appellant’ s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous

. Appellant ’s

counsel states that he has reviewed the record and concluded that it reflects no jurisdictional defects

or reversible error. In compliance with Anders

, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.

Crim. Ap p. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’ s brief presents a chronological procedural history of the

case and a professio nal evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable issues for2

appeal. 1 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Gainous , 436 S.W.2d at 138; see also

Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have

conducted an independent review of the record and have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v.

State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is

wholly frivolous.

C ONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (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). Having found that this appeal is wholly frivolous, we grant

coun sel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’ s judgment.

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 h er of her right to file a petition f or 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 this case by the Texas Cour t of Criminal Appeals, s he must either retain an

attorney to file a petition for discret ionary re view on her behalf or file a petition for discretionary

review pro se

. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with Texas Court of Criminal

Appeals within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for

rehear ing that was overruled by this C ourt. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2 ; 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 May 2 7, 2016

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

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 Appellant’s counsel states that he provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief. Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a bri ef has expired and we have received no pro se brief.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 2 7, 2016

NO. 12

- 15

- 00095

- CR

GLYNDA DENISE MOR ROW,

Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 1551

- 14)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinio n 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 opin ion

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