Melanie Rose Arnold, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee
Melanie Rose Arnold appeals her convictions for possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. 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.
Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. She pleaded “guilty” and was placed on eight years and five years of deferred adjudication community supervision, respectively. 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 the second allegation and not true to the rest. The trial court found the first and second allegations to be true, adjudicated Appellant's guilt, and assessed her punishment at imprisonment for eight years and two years, respectively. 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 claims that this appeal is without merit. Appellant's counsel further relates that she has conducted a careful, painstaking, and repeated examination of the record in this case and found no sound legal reason for reversal. 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.
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.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.P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex. R. App. P.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.
1. Counsel for Appellant has certified that she 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.