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 159TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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.

BACKGROUND

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 indictment. 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 punishment at 114 

months of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

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 is 
2

unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.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 

review of the appellate record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 

824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. 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 

the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. 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 TEX. R. APP. 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, she must either 

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

discretionary review. See id. at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed 

within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last 

timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 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(a). 

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; 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. Appellant 

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 record 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 decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

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