Court Opinion

ID: 3096719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:40:42.605867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:23.774969
License: Public Domain

In
The
                                                Court
of Appeals
                        Sixth
Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
 
                                                ______________________________
 
                                                             No. 06-09-00236-CR
                                                ______________________________
 
 
                                      SUE BETH JOHNSON,
Appellant
 
                                                                V.
 
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
 
 
                                                                                                  

 
 
                                         On Appeal from the 3rd Judicial District Court
                                                          Anderson
County, Texas
                                                            Trial
Court No. 28949
 
                                                         
                                         
 
 
 
                                          Before Morriss, C.J.,
Carter and Moseley, JJ.
                                            Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

                                                     MEMORANDUM 
OPINION
 
            Sue
Beth Johnson appeals from the revocation of her community supervision for the
underlying offense of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine).[1]  Tex.
Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(b) (Vernon 2010).  She was represented by different appointed
counsel at trial and on appeal.  
            Johnson’s
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 to Johnson on March 17, 2010, informing Johnson of
her right to file a pro se response and of her right to review the record.  Counsel has also filed a motion with this
Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.  Johnson has neither filed a pro se
response, nor has she requested an extension of time in which to file such
response.
            We
have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous.  We have independently reviewed the clerk’s
record and the reporter’s record, and we agree that no arguable issues support
an appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).  
            In
a frivolous appeal situation, we are to determine whether the appeal is without
merit and is frivolous, and if so, the appeal must be dismissed or
affirmed.  See Anders, 386 U.S. 738.   We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.[2]
 
 
                                                                        Bailey
C. Moseley
                                                                        Justice
 
Date Submitted:          July
27, 2010
Date Decided:             July
28, 2010
 
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).  

[2]Since
we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to
withdraw from further representation of Johnson in this case.  No substitute counsel will be appointed.  Should Johnson wish to seek further review of
this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Johnson must either retain an
attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Johnson 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.