Court Opinion

ID: 4126054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-15 05:14:25.891442+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:52.979146
License: Public Domain

IN THE
                          TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

                                 No. 10-16-00211-CR

PAMELA COAN,
                                                            Appellant
v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                                            Appellee

                           From the 52nd District Court
                              Coryell County, Texas
                             Trial Court No. 13-21927

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Pamela Coan, was charged by information with driving while

intoxicated with a child passenger, a state-jail felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.045

(West 2011). Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, appellant pleaded guilty to the

charged offense. The trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea, found appellant guilty

of the charged offense, sentenced appellant to two years’ confinement in the State Jail
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with a $1,000 fine, suspended the

sentence, and placed appellant on community supervision for three years.

        Thereafter, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision,

alleging that appellant violated numerous conditions of her community supervision.

Without the benefit of a plea agreement, appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations

contained in the State’s motion to revoke. The trial court accepted appellant’s pleas of

“true,” revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced appellant to eighteen

months confinement with no fine. The trial court certified appellant’s right of appeal,

and this appeal followed.

                                        I.     ANDERS BRIEF

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

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

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

(Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

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

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

are no reversible errors 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 and counsel’s motion to withdraw on appellant; and

(3) provided appellant with a copy of the record and informed her of her right to file a

pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510

n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time

has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se response.2 See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d

at 409.

                                         II.      INDEPENDENT REVIEW

          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.

          The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “‘the pro se response need not comply with
          1

the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.’” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).

          2In his notice to appellant, appellant’s counsel indicated that he has “previously sent [appellant] a
copy of the record for your use.” Based on this representation and the fact that we have not received a
complaint from appellant regarding access to the record, we have fair assurance that appellant has had
sufficient access to the record to assist in filing a pro se response, though no response has been filed. See
Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Coan v. State                                                                                          Page 3
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, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                       III.    MOTION TO WITHDRAW

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

permission to withdraw as counsel in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at

1400; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing 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.”) (citations omitted)). 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 this opinion and this Court’s judgment to appellant and to

advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4;

        3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant 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

Coan v. State                                                                                        Page 4
see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006).

                                                            AL SCOGGINS
                                                            Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,
       Justice Davis, and
       Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed February 8, 2017
Do not publish
[CR25]

review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing
or timely motion for en banc reconsideration 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 id. at R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
requirements of rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. at R. 68.4; see also In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.

Coan v. State                                                                                            Page 5