Court Opinion

ID: 9943683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-24 10:13:30.121294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:45.780088
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00120-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

SHANA LEANNE EARLE,                             §      APPEAL FROM THE 402ND
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Shana Leanne Earle appeals her conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
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 possession of a controlled substance, penalty
group 1, in the amount of one gram or more but less than four grams. Prior to trial, the State
filed a notice of punishment enhancement. Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter
proceeded to a jury trial. The evidence at trial showed that the case began as a traffic stop, and
Appellant was a passenger in the stopped vehicle. When the driver exited the vehicle, the officer
observed a hypodermic needle in the vehicle. Both the driver and Appellant were detained. The
driver admitted to the officer that the needle contained methamphetamine. After being informed
of her rights, Appellant admitted that she had methamphetamine at her residence and consented
to a search of her residence. Methamphetamine was found during that search, which led to her
arrest. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty.” Appellant elected to have the trial court
assess punishment. Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraphs. The trial court
sentenced Appellant to seven years confinement and a $2,500 fine. 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 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. 1
We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

                                                 CONCLUSION
        As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is affirmed.
        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 either this
opinion or the date that 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

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file her own brief. The time for filing such a brief
has expired, and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                        2
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.

Opinion delivered February 22, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                         FEBRUARY 22, 2024

                                         NO. 12-23-00120-CR

                                     SHANA LEANNE EARLE,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                Appeal from the 402nd District Court
                         of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 24,556-2021)

                        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.