Court Opinion

ID: 2914642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 18:39:40.259397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:57.138001
License: Public Domain

Opinion filed October 8, 2009

                                             In The

   Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                          ___________

                                    No. 11-09-00197-CR
                                        __________

    STEPHANIE LAVON WORD A/K/A STEPHANIE PAYNE, Appellant

                                                V.

                                STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                           On Appeal from the 104th District Court

                                      Taylor County, Texas

                                 Trial Court Cause No. 16863B

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
       The jury convicted Stephanie Lavon Work a/k/a Stephanie Payne of the offense of theft. The
trial court assessed her punishment at confinement for twenty-three months in a state jail facility.
We dismiss the appeal.
       Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported
by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable
law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided appellant
with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of her right to review the record and file a response
to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the
requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573
S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173
(Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).
       Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record,
and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise
appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Likewise, this court advises
appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX . R. APP . P. 66.
Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2007, no pet.).
       The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

                                                             PER CURIAM

October 8, 2009
Do not publish. See TEX . R. APP . P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.

                                                 2