## NO. 12

- 15

- 00191

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DEBORAH ANN PATTERSO N, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Deborah Ann Patterson appeals her conviction for credit or debit card abuse. Appellant’ s counsel filed a brief in 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
Appellant pleaded guilty to credit or debit card abuse. The trial court found Appellant
guilty, suspended imposition of sentence, and placed Appellant on community supervision. The

State later moved to revoke Appellant’s community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to
violating several conditions of her community supervision. The trial court revoked Appellant’s
community supervision and sentenced Appellant to eighteen months in a state jail faci lity.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’ s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous

. Appellant ’s

counsel states that he has reviewed the record and concluded that it reflects no jurisdictional

defects or reversible err or. In compliance with Anders

, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’ s brief presents a chronological procedural
history of the case and a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no2

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 conducted an independent review of the record an d have found no reversible

error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we
conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous.

C ONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellan t’ s

counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Having concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous, we

grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the tri al court’ s judgment.
Appellant’ s 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 h er of her right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; I n re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35.
Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Cour t of Criminal Appeals, s he
must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discret ionary review on her behalf or file a
petition for discretiona ry review pro se

. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the
last timely motion for rehear ing that was overruled by this C ourt. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2 ;
68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas
Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered June 15, 2016

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

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 Appellant’s counsel states that he provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief

. Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filin g such a brief has expired and we have received no

pro se brief.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 15 , 2016

NO. 12

- 15

- 00191

- CR

DEBORAH ANN PATTERSO N,

Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Cour t
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0784

- 14)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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, A DJUDGED 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

.