## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 21 - 00025 - CR MISTIE NACOLE BAILEY , A PPELLANT 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 third degree 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 communi ty supervision for a term of four years
. In October of 2020, the

1 See T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 38.06(a), (c).2

State filed its second amended motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision, alleging that appellant had committed thirty - five violatio ns of the conditions of supervision. At the hear ing 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 co unsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders

2 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 h er of his motion to withdraw; provided h er with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and access to the appellate record; and informed h er of h er 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 h er 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 reversib le 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 a nd 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 T EX . R. A PP . 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.