## NO. 12

- 14

- 00295

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SHADONDRA JENKINS, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 159T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORANDUM O PINION PER CURIAM Shadondra Jenkins appeals her convictions for injury to a child. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief asserting 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 An Angelina County grand jury returned a two count indictment against Appellant for the offenses of injury to a child. With no agreement on punishment, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to
both counts in the indic tment. After ordering and receiving the presentence investigation report, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” of two counts of injury to a child and assessed punishmen t at 114 months of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , and states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record. In compliance with Anders
, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is2

unable to present any arguable issues for app eal. 1 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400;
Gainous , 436 S.W.2d at 138; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have considered counsel’s brief, and have also conducted our own independent
revi ew of the appellate record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. C rim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant his motion for leave to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of

t he trial court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2. 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 him of his 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 further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, s he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or s he must file a pro se pe tition for discretionary review. See id

. at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after the date of th is opinion or after the date this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2 (a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at
408 n.22. Opinion delivered July 31, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 Counsel states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief. Appell ant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31 , 2015

NO. 12

- 14

- 00295

- CR

SHADONDRA JENKINS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 159th District Court of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2013

- 0615) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate recor d and briefs 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 d ecision be certified to the court
below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

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