## NUMBER S 13 - 12 - 00061 - CR and 13
- 12 - 00062 - CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

DEBORAH JOYCE TURNER AKA DEBORAH TURNER PUENTE AKA DEBORAH JOYCE TURNER , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

. 1



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rose Vela Appellant, Deborah Joyce Turner AKA Deborah Turner Puente AKA Deborah Joyce Turner , pleaded guilty to two separate offenses of delivery of a controlled

1 Th e s e case s are before the Court on transfer from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Beaumont pursuant to an order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West, 2005).2

substance in amounts of at least one gram or more and less than four grams. See T EX

. H EALTH AND S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.112 (W est 2010 ). She pleaded guilty to both offenses without an agreement with respect to punishment, except that any sentence imposed would not exceed ten years. After a sentencing hearing, th e trial court sentenced her to ten years of imprisonment for each offense to run concurrently. Appellant timely perfected th e s e appeal s , and as discussed below, her court

- appointed
counsel filed Anders brief s . We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), appellant ' s
court

- appointed appellate counsel filed brief s and motion s to withdraw with this Court, stating that h is review of the record yielded no grounds of error upon which an appeal can be predicated. C ounsel ' s brief s meet the requirements of Anders as t hey present professional evaluation s demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ( " In 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 (Te x. 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), appellant ' s counsel has carefully discussed why, under con trolling authority,
there are no reversible errors in the trial court ' s judgment. Counsel has informed this3

Court that he has: (1) examined the record s and found no arguab le grounds to advance on appeal; (2) served a copy of the brief s and counsel ' s moti on s to withdraw on appellant; and (3) informed appellant of h er right to review the record and to file pro se response s in
each case

. 2 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 tha n an adequate period of time has passed, and appellant has not filed a ny 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 case as well as counsel ' s brief s , and have found nothi ng that would arguably support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 2 8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( " Due 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.2 d at 509.
There is no reversible error in the record. Accordingly, the judgment s of the trial court

are affirmed.

2 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that " the pro se response n eed 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 merit orious 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.)).4 III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders , appellant ' s attorney asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant in both cases

. 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.) ( " [i]f an attorney believes the appeal is 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 frivo lous

. " ) (citations omitted)). We grant counsel ' s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court ' s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court ' s judgment to appellant and to
advise h er of h er right to file a p etition for discretionary review. 3 See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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).

ROSE VELA Justice Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 25th day of October , 201 2

.

3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, s he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discr etionary 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 or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 68.2. Effective September 1, 2011, any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texa s Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4.