Court Opinion

ID: 3193157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-04-12 16:11:29.057161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:14.709375
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued April 5, 2016

                                     In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                         First District of Texas
                           ————————————
                               NO. 01-15-00611-CR
                          ———————————
                   CAITLIN COLLEEN HALE, Appellant
                                       V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                  On Appeal from the 176th District Court
                          Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Case No. 1397451

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Appellant, Caitlin Colleen Hale, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of

aggravated assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West 2011). In accordance

with appellant’s plea-bargain agreement with the State, the trial court found

sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty, but deferred making any finding
regarding appellant’s guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for a

period of three years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 § 5(a) (West Supp.

2014). The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, alleging

various violations of the terms of appellant’s community supervision. See id. §§ 5(b),

21(e). Appellant pleaded true to a number of the alleged violations of the terms of

her community supervision. The trial court found multiple allegations true,

adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to seven years’ imprisonment.

See id. §§ 5(b), 21(b), 23. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.

      Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is

without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a

professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record

and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v.

State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has

thoroughly reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that

warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State,

193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).

      We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we

conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds

                                          2
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400

(emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines, after full

examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State,

300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine

whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court

determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note that

an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal

by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6.

      We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw.1 Attorney Kyle B. Johnson must immediately send appellant the required

notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

6.5(c).

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1
      Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
      and that he may, on his own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
      Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
                                           3