NO. 12-14-00333-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MARY LOUISE HENRY, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Mary Louise Henry appeals her conviction for possession of marijuana in a drug free zone. 

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.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of possession of marijuana in a drug 

free zone, a third degree felony. Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense charged in the 

indictment, and “true” to the allegation that she committed the offense in and on and within 1,000 

feet of a drug free zone, a playground. Appellant and her counsel signed various documents in 

connection with her guilty plea, including a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that 

the facts alleged in the indictment was true and correct, and constituted the evidence in the case. 

The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of 

Appellant’s guilt, deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and 

ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years. 

Later, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant 

had violated the terms of her community supervision. Appellant signed a document entitled 
2

“Written Plea Admonishments and Stipulation of Evidence” in which she pleaded “true” to all of 

the allegations in the State’s application. At the hearing, Appellant also pleaded “true” to the 

allegations in the State’s application. After a hearing, the trial court found all the allegations to be 

“true,” granted the State’s application, revoked Appellant’s deferred adjudication community 

supervision, adjudged Appellant guilty of possession of marijuana in a drug free zone, and 

assessed her punishment at five years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he 

has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no 

reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our 

review of counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. 

In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, 

and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have reviewed 

the record for reversible error and have found none.1 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 in this case. 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 trial 

court’s judgment. 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 her of her 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 

 

1 Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant 

that she had the right to file her own brief. Appellant was given time to file her own brief, but the time for filing such 

a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.
3

discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the day 

the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed with 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; In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 22, 2015.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 22, 2015

NO. 12-14-00333-CR

MARY LOUISE HENRY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1056-13)

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, 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.