Court Opinion

ID: 3172120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-26 14:09:07.094982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:22.659286
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                       NO. 03-15-00232-CR

                                 Alicia Nichole Perez, Appellant

                                                  v.

                                   The State of Texas, Appellee

     FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
         NO. CR2012-603, HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION

               Appellant Alicia Nichole Perez was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled

substance under four grams, a third-degree felony, and sentenced to four years in prison. See Tex.

Health & Safety Code § 481.115(c); Tex. Penal Code § 12.34.

               Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a

brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements

of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating

that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45

(1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that she provided

copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate

record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in

this Court; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record
along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has not requested and received the appellate record, nor has a pro se

brief been filed.

                  We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might

arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal

is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment

of conviction.1

                                               __________________________________________

                                               David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

Affirmed

Filed: January 21, 2016

Do Not Publish

        1
          No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of
her case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition
for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See generally Tex. R. App.
P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary
review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court
overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with
the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with
this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this
Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case cause will be forwarded
to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7.

                                                   2