Court Opinion

ID: 3080161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:48:52.877036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:08.736603
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-10-00257-CR

                        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

          TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

AMIE ROCHELLE CRAWFORD,                          §           APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                               §           JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §           SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Amie Rochelle Crawford appeals her conviction for felony theft, for which she was
sentenced to imprisonment for twenty months. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v.
State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismiss the appeal.

                                          BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with felony theft and pleaded “guilty.” The trial
court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and sentenced her to imprisonment for twenty months.
This appeal followed.

                        ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
       Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant=s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In

                                                 1
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978), Appellant=s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the
case and further states that Appellant=s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1
We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

                                                   CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant=s
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Appellant subsequently filed an objection to counsel’s
motion for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having
done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s objection to her counsel’s motion for leave to
withdraw is overruled, Appellant=s counsel=s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and
the appeal is dismissed.
         As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five
days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise
her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
408 n.22.
Opinion delivered July 29, 2011.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
                                              (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         1
           Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief.
Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and no pro se
brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure has been filed.

                                                           2