Court Opinion

ID: 9942479
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 07:11:49.072938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:07.285559
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed February 13, 2024

                                   S  In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00433-CR

                     HEIDI NICOLE DENMAN, Appellant
                                   V.
                      THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 354th Judicial District Court
                            Hunt County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. 33348CR

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                   Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith
                            Opinion by Justice Smith
      Heidi Nicole Denman appeals her conviction for the second degree felony

offense of possession of methamphetamine in the amount of 4 grams or more but

less than 200 grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d). Her

court-appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), asserting that a review of the record shows no reversible error. Because we

agree that the appeal is frivolous, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm

the judgment of conviction.
                          Background and Procedural History

      On October 14, 2020, as part of a plea bargain agreement, appellant pleaded

guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was placed on ten years deferred

adjudication community supervision. On February 13, 2023, the State filed an

amended motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated her community

supervision by committing sixteen violations. At a March 9, 2023 hearing, the State

abandoned the first nine allegations. Appellant pleaded true to allegations ten

through fourteen. The trial court found allegations fifteen and sixteen also to be true,

revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced

her to twenty years in prison.

      Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial and notice of appeal. The trial

court appointed counsel to represent her. Thereafter, appellant’s attorney filed a

motion to withdraw, supported by an Anders brief in which she concluded the appeal

was frivolous and without merit.

                                        Anders

      The Anders procedure is used in criminal cases when appellate counsel,

cognizant of her ethical duties not to raise frivolous issues on appeal, can identify no

non-frivolous issues to raise for appeal. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014). Counsel must seek leave to withdraw and file a brief that provides

a “roadmap” explaining why there are only frivolous issues to be raised on appeal.

See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel must

                                          –2–
have performed a diligent review of the record for any claim that may be appealed,

and we must determine counsel was correct in concluding the appeal is frivolous.

Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.).

      The brief filed by counsel establishes a diligent review of the record, at each

stage of the proceeding, including the plea agreement, State’s motion to adjudicate,

adjudication hearing, and the trial court’s assessment of punishment. Counsel cited

relevant law and provided record citations in her review. Based on counsel’s review

of the record, counsel determined that there are no legal or factual issues that might

arguably support an appeal.

      Counsel provided appellant with a copy of the brief and the record and

informed her of her right to file a pro se brief. See Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319. This

Court also provided notice to appellant of her right to file a pro se response and

petition for discretionary review. To this date, appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

The State filed a letter brief agreeing with appellant’s counsel that an appeal of this

case is frivolous and without merit because no reversible error appears in the record.

      We conclude that counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders

by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are

no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–12 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel

Op.] 1978). Additionally, we have independently reviewed the record and conclude

there are no arguable grounds to present on appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744;

                                          –3–
Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

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

judgment.

                                           /Craig Smith/
                                           CRAIG SMITH
                                           JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
230433F.U05

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

HEIDI NICOLE DENMAN,                        On Appeal from the 354th Judicial
Appellant                                   District Court, Hunt County, Texas
                                            Trial Court Cause No. 33348CR.
No. 05-23-00433-CR         V.               Opinion delivered by Justice Smith.
                                            Justices Molberg and Reichek
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                participating.

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

Judgment entered this 13th day of February 2024.

                                      –5–