## NO. 12

- 18

- 00192

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TAYLOR NICOLE SKINNE R, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT CO URT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Taylor Nicole Skinner appeals her conviction for injury to a child. 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.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with intentionally and knowingly causing serious
bodily injury to a child by omission. She pleaded “guilty.” After a hearing, the trial court assessed
Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for twenty

- five years. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s appellate counsel filed a brief in compl iance with Anders v. California and

Gainous v. State

. Appellant’s counsel relates that he reviewed the record and found no reversible
error or jurisdictional defect. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.2

[Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 1
We considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record.

Id. at 811. We found no reversible erro r.

C ONCLUSION As required by Anders and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the

merits. Having done so, we agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly,

we grant Appellant’s 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 48.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant
wish to seek review of these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain
an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. Any petit ion for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days
from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled
by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be f iled with
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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 In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opi nion delivered March 29 , 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State

, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appella te record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file her own brief. The time for filing such a brief expired and no pro se brief was filed.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 29 , 2019

NO. 12

- 18

- 00192

- CR

TAYLOR NICOLE SKINNE R,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 1574

- 17)

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 decisio n be certified to the court below

for observance.
By per curiam opinion

.

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

.