NO. 12-18-00192-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TAYLOR NICOLE SKINNER, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

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.

BACKGROUND

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.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance 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 error.

CONCLUSION

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 TEX. R. APP. 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 petition 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion 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 appellate 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 SKINNER,

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 decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

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