Opinion
No. 04-14-00559-CR
04-08-2015
Carmelina Ornelas VALENZUELA, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas
Trial Court No. B10726
Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
Carmen Ornelas Valenzuela pled guilty to the second degree felony offense of Possession of a Controlled Substance in Penalty Group 1, 4-200 grams, and was placed on deferred adjudication for a period of five years. An initial "Motion to Proceed" resulted in Valenzuela's deferred adjudication being continued and extended for one year. Thereafter, the State filed a second "Motion to Proceed" alleging that Valenzuela violated several conditions of her original deferred adjudication community supervision order. Valenzuela pled "not true" to the alleged violations. The trial court found that Valenzuela violated the conditions of her community supervision as alleged, adjudicated Valenzuela guilty, and revoked her community supervision. The court sentenced Valenzuela to eleven years' imprisonment. Valenzuela was also assessed court costs in the amount of $70.00. She now appeals.
Valenzuela's court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Valenzuela with a copy of the brief and informed her of her right to review the record and to file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Valenzuela did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, and appellate counsel's request to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Valenzuela wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Valenzuela must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Valenzuela must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. 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.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Do not publish