In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-21-00025-CR 

 

MISTIE NACOLE BAILEY, APPELLANT 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

On Appeal from the 84th District Court 

 Hutchinson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 11921, Honorable Curt Brancheau, Presiding 

December 15, 2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant, Mistie Nacole Bailey, was charged with escape from custody, a thirddegree felony.1

 Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pleaded guilty to the charge on 

December 14, 2017. The trial court sentenced appellant to eight years’ confinement in 

the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, but suspended confinement and placed 

appellant on community supervision for a term of four years. In October of 2020, the 

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §38.06(a), (c).
2

State filed its second amended motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision, 

alleging that appellant had committed thirty-five violations of the conditions of supervision. 

At the hearing on the State’s motion, appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations. The 

trial court heard evidence, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and assessed 

punishment at eight years’ confinement. Appellant then brought this appeal.

Appellant’s counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an 

Anders2 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the 

record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the

record presents no reversible error. In a letter to appellant, counsel notified her of his 

motion to withdraw; provided her with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and access to 

the appellate record; and informed her of her right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. 

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s 

obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, 

this Court also advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders

brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error 

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently 

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
3

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were 

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal but, like counsel, we have found 

no such issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 

(1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we 

conclude there are no plausible grounds for appellate review.

Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.3 The judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed.

Judy C. Parker

 Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send appellant a copy of the 

opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is 

ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted 

counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.