Jenkins
v.
State

COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXASJul 31, 2015
NO. 12-14-00295-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 31, 2015)

NO. 12-14-00295-CR

07-31-2015

SHADONDRA JENKINS, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE


APPEAL FROM THE 159TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT ANGELINA COUNTY , TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION


Shadondra Jenkins appeals her convictions for injury to a child. Appellant's counsel filed a brief asserting 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 affirm.

BACKGROUND

An Angelina County grand jury returned a two count indictment against Appellant for the offenses of injury to a child. With no agreement on punishment, Appellant pleaded "guilty" to both counts in the indictment. After ordering and receiving the presentence investigation report, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Appellant "guilty" of two counts of injury to a child and assessed punishment at 114 months of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , and states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record. In compliance with Anders , Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Gainous , 436 S.W.2d at 138; see also Penson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).

Counsel states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief. Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief. --------

We have considered counsel's brief, and have also conducted our own independent review of the appellate record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v . State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We agree with Appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant his motion for leave to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

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 him of his 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 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 she must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See id . at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered July 31, 2015.
Panel consisted of Worthen
, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.


(DO NOT PUBLISH)

JUDGMENT

Appeal from the 159th District Court of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2013-0615)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.


Panel consisted of Worthen
, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.