Court Opinion

ID: 3092049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:06:07.112839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:48.349875
License: Public Domain

In
The
                                                Court
of Appeals
                        Sixth
Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
 
                                                ______________________________
 
                                                             No. 06-11-00011-CR
                                                ______________________________
 
 
                                ELIZABETH ROSHEA HILL,
Appellant
 
                                                                V.
 
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
 
                                                                                                  

 
 
                                       On Appeal from the 114th
Judicial District Court
                                                             Smith County, Texas
                                                       Trial Court
No. 114-0499-10
 
                                                    
                                              
 
 
 
                                          Before Morriss, C.J.,
Carter and Moseley, JJ.
                                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

                                                     MEMORANDUM 
OPINION
 
            Elizabeth
Roshea Hill appeals from the revocation of her community supervision.[1]  She had been convicted of driving while
intoxicated with a child passenger, and given a two-year probated
sentence.  On an application for
revocation of community supervision, Hill pled true to the allegations, and was
sentenced to fifteen months’ incarceration in a state-jail facility.   
            Hills’
attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the
proceedings in detail.  Counsel has thus
provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect,
there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 
This meets the requirements of Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford
v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
            Counsel
mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Hill on March 6, 2011, informing
Hill of her right to file a pro se response and to review the record.  Counsel has also filed a motion with this
Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.  
            Hill
has neither contacted this Court, nor has she filed a pro se response.
            We
have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and find no genuinely
arguable issue.  See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005).  We, therefore, agree with counsel’s
assessment that no arguable issues support an appeal.  See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  
            Having
found no genuinely arguable issue for appellate review, we find the appeal to
be frivolous.  Consequently, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.[2]
 
 
 
 
                                                                        Bailey
C. Moseley
                                                                        Justice
 
Date Submitted:          May
16, 2011
Date Decided:             May
18, 2011
 
Do Not Publish

[1]Originally
appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this
Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization
efforts.  See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 73.001
(Vernon 2005).  We are unaware of any
conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this
Court on any relevant issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 41.3.

[2]Since
we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accord with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case.  No substitute counsel will be appointed.  Should appellant wish to seek further review
of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant
must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last
timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court.  See
Tex. R. App. P. 68.2.  Any petition for discretionary review must be
filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case.  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.