Court Opinion

ID: 4287449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-06-22 18:53:37.964557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:04.053650
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                         TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                No. 10-17-00264-CR

CYNTHIA STALEY,
                                                           Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                           Appellee

                           From the 52nd District Court
                              Coryell County, Texas
                              Trial Court No. 23,333

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant Cynthia Ann Staley pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to

possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance in the amount of one gram or

more but less than four grams. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112 (West

2017). The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and placed Staley on community

supervision for five years. The State later moved to proceed to an adjudication of guilt.

The motion alleged that Staley violated a condition of her community supervision

because she admitted to her community supervision officer that she had used
methamphetamine.       Staley pled “true” to the allegation. The trial court thereafter

adjudicated Staley guilty and sentenced her to seven years’ imprisonment. This appeal

ensued. We affirm.

        Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d
493 (1967), Staley’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to

withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of

error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements

of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’

points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts

and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State,

112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

        In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978), Staley’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is

no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he

has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2)

served a copy of the brief, counsel’s motion to withdraw, and the appellate record on

Staley; and (3) informed Staley of her right to review the record and to file a pro se

Staley v. State                                                                       Page 2
response. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see

also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed,

and Staley has not filed a pro se response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

        Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the

proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349-50, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record

and counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of

Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs

and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

        In accordance with Anders, Staley’s attorney has asked this Court for permission

to withdraw as counsel for Staley. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must

withdraw from representing the appellant.         To withdraw from representation, the

appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the

appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of

Staley v. State                                                                         Page 3
this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Staley and to advise her of her right to file a

petition for discretionary review.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

                                                           REX D. DAVIS
                                                           Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Davis, and
       Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 20, 2018
Do not publish
[CR25]

1No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Staley 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 must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must
be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or from the date the last timely motion for rehearing
was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the 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; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

Staley v. State                                                                                        Page 4