Court Opinion

ID: 9351907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 07:09:33.440927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:37.391398
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed December 28, 2022

                                                In The
                                  Court of Appeals
                           Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                       No. 05-21-00299-CR

                   VERONICA GONZALEZ SNOWBALL, Appellant
                                    V.
                        THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                          On Appeal from the 354th District Court
                                   Hunt County, Texas
                             Trial Court Cause No. 32376CR

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION
                        Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Garcia
                                Opinion by Justice Molberg

         Appellant Veronica Gonzalez Snowball appeals the revocation of her

community supervision and adjudication of guilt for the offense of possession of

marijuana in an amount greater than five pounds but less than fifty pounds. Her

court-appointed appellate counsel, Peter I. Morgan filed an Anders1 brief and a

motion to withdraw as counsel, asserting that no arguable grounds of appeal exist.

We agree, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirm the judgment below.

   1
       See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967).
      In 2018, appellant was indicted for the offense of possession of marijuana in

an amount greater than five pounds but less than fifty pounds. She waived her right

to a jury trial and pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement with the State.

The trial court accepted the agreement and sentenced her to four years’ deferred

probation with drug terms, 180 hours of community service, and a $500 fine.

      The State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s probation in 2019. The trial

court denied that motion in 2020 following a hearing.

      The State filed a second motion to revoke appellant’s probation in 2021. The

State alleged appellant violated three conditions of supervision by (1) committing

the offense of possession of controlled substance on or about October 16, 2020, (2)

committing the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia on the same date, and

(3) failing to perform 180 hours of community service and having a remaining

balance of 157 hours.

      The trial court heard the State’s second motion to revoke on March 31, 2021,

and April 1, 2021. Appellant pleaded not true to the first two allegations and pleaded

true to the third. The State abandoned the first allegation and proceeded on the

second and third. One witness testified, and one exhibit was admitted into evidence.

After both sides rested, the court found the second and third allegations to be true,

adjudicated appellant guilty of the felony offense of possession of marijuana over

five pounds and less than fifty pounds, and sentenced her to nine years’ confinement

in the correctional institutions division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

                                         –2–
      If court-appointed appellate counsel files an Anders brief asserting that no

arguable grounds for appeal exist, we must independently examine the record to

determine whether the appeal is “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744–45.

“An appeal is ‘wholly frivolous’ or ‘without merit’ when it ‘lacks any basis in law

or fact.’” Crowe v. State, 595 S.W.3d 317, 319 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2020, no pet.)

(quoting McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10 (1988)). Arguments

are frivolous if they cannot conceivably persuade the court. Id.

      According to his brief, counsel concluded no arguable grounds for appeal

exist based on his review of appellant’s statements and testimony, the trial court’s

evidentiary rulings, the judgment and sentence, and trial counsel’s effectiveness. We

have reviewed the record and agree with counsel’s assessment.

      In his motion to withdraw, counsel stated he was concurrently informing

appellant of his motion and sending a letter to appellant which would be provided,

and that was provided, to the Court. Counsel’s letter informed appellant of her right

to review a copy of the record, her right to respond pro se, her right to request an

extension of time to respond, and her right to file a petition for discretionary review

with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if she did not receive the relief she desired.

Counsel’s letter also provided appellant with instructions on how to request the

record from our Court and included a motion she could file for that purpose.

      This Court also sent appellant a letter informing her that counsel filed an

Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Copies of the brief and motion were

                                         –3–
included with the letter. This Court informed appellant that she had a right to review

the appellate record, to file a pro se response, and to seek discretionary review should

the Court find her appeal frivolous. Appellant did not file a response.

      Based on our review of the record, we conclude that appellant’s appeal “lacks

any basis in law or fact” and is therefore frivolous. See Crowe, 595 S.W.3d at 319.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

                                            /Ken Molberg/
210299f.u05                                 KEN MOLBERG
Do Not Publish                              JUSTICE
TEX. R. APP. P. 47

                                          –4–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

VERONICA GONZALEZ                            On Appeal from the 354th District
SNOWBALL, Appellant                          Court, Hunt County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. 32376CR.
No. 05-21-00299-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice
                                             Molberg. Justices Reichek and
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Garcia participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 28th day of December, 2022.

                                       –5–