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 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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.

BACKGROUND

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.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

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

case and a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable issues for 
2

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. 

CONCLUSION

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 

counsel’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 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 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 

rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. 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 27, 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 brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. 
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 27, 2016

NO. 12-15-00095-CR

GLYNDA DENISE MORROW,

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 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.