Court Opinion

ID: 3123907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 14:45:57.473066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:05.282370
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          No. 04-11-00878-CR

                                         Michelle ALMANZA,
                                              Appellant

                                                  v.

                                         The STATE of Texas,
                                               Appellee

                     From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                   Trial Court No. 2011-CR-2918
                           Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:       Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Sitting:          Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice
                  Rebecca Simmons, Justice
                  Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 12, 2012

AFFIRMED

           Michelle Almanza was charged with possession of a controlled substance, namely heroin,

in an amount less than one gram. After her pre-trial motion to suppress was denied, Almanza

pled no contest and received two years of deferred adjudication community supervision and a

$1,200 fine. Almanza now appeals the denial of her motion to suppress. We affirm the trial

court’s judgment.
                                                                                     04-11-00878-CR

        Almanza’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and a

motion to withdraw. In the brief, counsel raises no arguable appellate issues, and concludes this

appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the Anders requirements. See id.; see also

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1969). As required, counsel provided Almanza with a copy of the brief and motion

to withdraw, and informed her of her right to review the record and file her own pro se brief. See

Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); see also Bruns

v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Almanza did not file

a pro se brief.

        After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we conclude there is no reversible error

and agree with counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

See id. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns,
924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1.

        No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Almanza 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 review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this

opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that is 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.

                                                -2-
                                                                                 04-11-00878-CR

See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3.     Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the

requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.

                                               Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

                                              -3-