NUMBERS

13-10-00429-CR

13-10-00430-CR 

13-10-00431-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

MARGARET YORK, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 36th District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

By three separate indictments, appellant, Margaret York, was charged with 

several instances of forgery, a state-jail felony, and one instance of debit-card abuse, 

also a state-jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 32.21(b), (d), 32.31(b), (d) 
2

(Vernon Supp. 2010). With regard to the first instance of forgery, allegedly occurring on 

October 18, 2006, York pleaded guilty, and the trial court placed her on probation for 

three years and imposed a $1,000 fine. The State subsequently indicted York with two 

additional counts of forgery, allegedly occurring on July 3, 2007. York pleaded guilty to 

both counts of forgery, and the trial court sentenced her to confinement in the State Jail 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for one year, probated the 

sentence, and imposed a $750 fine for each count. York was later indicted for the 

offense of debit-card abuse, allegedly occurring on June 10, 2008. York pleaded guilty 

to this offense, and the trial court sentenced her to two years’ confinement in the 

StateJail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, probated for five years.

On November 13, 2009, the State filed motions to revoke York’s probation in 

each case, alleging that she failed to: (1) report to her probation officer for several 

months; (2) submit to random urinalysis for several months; and (3) pay supervisory 

fees, fines, and restitution for several months. The State later amended its motions to 

revoke to further allege that York recently had been arrested for driving while intoxicated 

and unlawfully carrying a weapon, both of which constituted violations of the terms of 

her probation.

At the hearing conducted on the State’s motion to revoke, York pleaded “true” to 

most of the allegations contained in the State’s motions to revoke. The trial court 

accepted York’s pleas of “true” and revoked her probation. In appellate cause number

13-10-00430-CR (the debit-card abuse case), the trial court sentenced York to two 

years’ confinement in the State Jail Division of the Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice and ordered that she pay $10,000 in restitution. In appellate cause number 13-
3

10-00431-CR (the case involving the two counts of forgery allegedly committed on July 

3, 2007), the trial court sentenced York to one years’ confinement with no fine. Finally, 

in appellate cause number 13-10-00429-CR (the case involving the first instance of 

forgery), the trial court sentenced York to two years’ confinement with a $1,000 fine. 

The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The trial court certified York’s right to 

appeal in all three cause numbers, and these appeals followed. We affirm. 

I. ANDERS BRIEF

Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), York=s 

court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief with this Court, addressing each of 

the three appellate cause numbers and stating that his review of the record yielded no 

grounds or error upon which an appeal can be predicated in any of the appellate cause 

numbers. Although counsel=s brief does not advance any arguable grounds of error, it 

does present a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no 

arguable grounds to be advanced in either appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 

403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (AIn 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). 

In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), York's counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, 

there are no errors in the trial court's judgments. Counsel has informed this Court that 

he has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance in any of 
4

the three appellate cause numbers; (2) served copies of the brief and counsel=s motions 

to withdraw on York; and (3) informed York of her right to review the record and to file a 

pro se response in each cause number.

1

 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Stafford, 813 

S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an 

adequate period of time has passed, and York has not filed a pro se response. See In 

re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

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 entire record in each appellate cause 

number and counsel's brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an 

appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (ADue 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 Appellate Procedure 47.1.@); 

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW

In accordance with Anders, York=s attorney has asked this Court for permission 

to withdraw as counsel in each appellate cause number. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 

776, 779-80 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1995, no pet.) (AIf an attorney believes the appeal is 

 

1

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that Athe 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) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.–Waco 1997, no pet.)).
5

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 motions to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court=s opinion, 

counsel is ordered to send a copy of the opinion and judgment in each appellate cause 

number to York and advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review.2 

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, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

___________________

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do not publish. 

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

Delivered and filed the 

14th day of April, 2011.

 

2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should York wish to seek further review of these cases 

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 

that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be 

filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 68.3; 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.