NO. 12-12-00027-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEBRA MICHELLE GURLEY, § APPEALS FROM THE 294TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Debra Michelle Gurley appeals her conviction for possession of methamphetamine. 

Appellant pleaded guilty, and the trial court assessed punishment at sixteen months of confinement 

in a state jail facility. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that 

motion 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.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that she 

is well acquainted with the facts in this case and has diligently reviewed the appellate record. In 

compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), 

Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and 

further states that Appellant’s counsel is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error 

and counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have considered counsel’s brief

 

1 Counsel for Appellant has certified that she provided Appellant with a copy of this 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 not received a 

pro se brief.
2

and conducted our own independent review of the record. We have found no reversible error. 

See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 

503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal 

is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, her motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s 

judgment is affirmed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09.

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 further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either 

retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from 

the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion for rehearing is overruled by this 

court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the 

clerk for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in the case. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). 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; 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered March 6, 2012.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
3

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 6, 2013

NO. 12-12-00027-CR

DEBRA MICHELLE GURLEY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

 Appeal from the 294th Judicial District Court

 of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. CR06-00059)

 

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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 Appellant’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, 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., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.