## NO. 12

- 12

- 00 0 27

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEBRA MICHELLE GURLEY , § APPEAL S FROM THE 29 4TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Debra Michelle Gurley appeals h er 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

moti on 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

.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in comp liance with Anders and Gainous , stating that s he

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 bri ef 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 reflect s no reversible error
and counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 1 We have considered counsel’s bri ef

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).

C ONCLUSION 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 couns el that the appeal

is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, h er 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant

wish to seek further review of th is case by t he Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, s he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or s he 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must b e filed with the

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

T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 , 201 3

NO. 12

- 12

- 00 0 27

- CR

DEBRA MICHELLE GURLEY ,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 29 4th Judicial District Court

of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. CR06

- 00059 )

TH I S 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 w as 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 decis ion be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.