Nakeshia Morton, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee (2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Nakeshia Morton appeals her conviction for securing execution of a document by deception.   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 affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged by indictment with securing execution of a document by deception.   She pleaded “guilty” and was placed on four years of deferred adjudication community supervision.   Later, the State filed a motion to proceed with adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of her community supervision.   Appellant pleaded true to nine of the allegations.   The trial court found these allegations to be true, adjudicated Appellant's guilt, and assessed her punishment at imprisonment for two years.   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 relates that he has diligently and thoroughly searched and reviewed the record in this case.   Counsel further relates that he has researched the applicable law and painstakingly searched for any arguable issue.   In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.¹  We have considered counsel's brief and conducted our own independent review of the record.  Id. at 811.   We have found no reversible error.

Conclusion

As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (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).  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.   Having done so, we agree with Appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.   Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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 pro se petition for discretionary review.   Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this court's judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court.   See Tex.R.App. P. 68.2(a).   Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with 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 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Counsel for Appellant has certified 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 we have not received a pro se brief.

PER CURIAM