NOS. 12-14-00349-CR

 12-14-00354-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RACHEL MICHELLE KIRKSEY, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Rachel Michelle Kirksey appeals her convictions for possession of a controlled substance 

and tampering with physical evidence. 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

In July 2014, Appellant was indicted for possession of a controlled substance, a state jail 

felony as alleged in the indictment. In a separate case, Appellant was indicted for tampering 

with physical evidence, a third degree felony.

Appellant pleaded “guilty” pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement on both offenses. In 

accordance with the agreement, the trial court found Appellant guilty of the possession of a 

controlled substance charge, sentenced her to two years of confinement in a state jail facility, 

suspended her sentence, and placed her on community supervision for a period of five years. 

The trial court also found Appellant guilty of the tampering with physical evidence charge, 

sentenced her to imprisonment for a period of ten years, suspended her sentence, and placed her 

on community supervision for a period of five years.
2

In September 2014, the State filed an application in each case to revoke Appellant’s 

community supervision.1In the amended applications, the State alleged that Appellant failed to 

pay various fees required as conditions of her community supervision, and also that she failed to 

report to her community supervision officer on several occasions. Appellant pleaded “true” to 

all the allegations in the State’s applications. 

Accordingly, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twelve months of confinement in a 

state jail facility for the possession of a controlled substance charge, and five years of 

imprisonment for the tampering with physical evidence charge. The trial court ordered that the 

sentences be served concurrently. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states 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. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. 

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

[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural 

history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable 

issues for appeal.2 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found 

none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’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). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and 

the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

 

1 The State filed amended applications to revoke Appellant’s community supervision in October 2014.

2 Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this 

brief. Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and

no pro se brief has been filed.
3

As a result of our disposition of this case, 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 

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 review of this case by the 

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for 

discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. 

Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this 

court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman,

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

BRIAN HOYLE

Justice

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. 12-14-00349-CR

RACHEL MICHELLE KIRKSEY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0777-14)

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, 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.

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 22, 2015

NO. 12-14-00354-CR

RACHEL MICHELLE KIRKSEY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0778-14)

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, 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.

Brian Hoyle, Justice.

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