In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00058-CR

TAMMY RENEE HANKS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 7th District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 007-1419-12

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tammy Renee Hanks appeals from her conviction in Smith County,

1 on an open plea of 

guilty, for possession of a controlled substance. She pled true to allegations of two prior 

convictions (burglary of a habitation in 1998 and possession of a controlled substance in 2008). 

Hanks was, therefore, sentenced as a habitual criminal, and the court assessed her punishment at 

thirty years’ imprisonment. 

Hanks’ attorney on appeal has filed a brief which states that he has reviewed the record. 

Counsel summarizes the evidence elicited during the course of the proceeding and briefly 

explains the procedural history, stating that he has found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 

Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, 

there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1981); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Hanks June 24, 2013, along with a copy of his 

motion to withdraw and a letter. That letter informed Hanks of her right to file a pro se response 

and offered to provide her with a copy of the record should she choose to appeal. Counsel has 

also filed the motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.

 1

Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013). We are 

unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant 

issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
3

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently 

reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record and find no genuinely arguable issue. See 

Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (U.S. 2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel’s 

assessment that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: August 16, 2013

Date Decided: August 19, 2013

Do Not Publish

 2

Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to 

withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will 

be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, 

appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se 

petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either 

the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was 

overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk 

of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should 

comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.