Opinion
NO. 12-13-00148-CR
03-31-2014
MICHEALLE BOSTON A/K/A MICHEALLE FRISON, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 217TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Michealle Boston a/k/a Michealle Frison appeals her conviction for aggravated assault. 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 the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second degree felony. The State later filed a notice of an intention to use a prior felony conviction for enhancement. Appellant pleaded "not guilty," and the case proceeded to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault as charged in the indictment. After a punishment hearing, the trial court found the enhancement paragraph to be "true," made an affirmative deadly weapon finding, and assessed Appellant's punishment at twenty-five years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating 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. From our review of counsel's brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.
In Appellant's pro se brief, she argues that her counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he withheld information regarding her medical history; and failed to adequately investigate the victim's criminal, mental, and medical history; to suppress her past criminal convictions; to suppress a videotape recording; and to request a mistrial. Additionally, Appellant argued that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction, that the trial court abused its discretion by using a prior conviction for enhancement that was more than ten years old in violation of Rule 609(c) of the Texas Rules of Evidence, and that there is no evidence of a deadly weapon. Further, she complained that the trial court admitted inadmissible hearsay and violated Rules 405, 613, 615, and 806 of the Texas Rules of Evidence, the United States Constitution, and the Texas Constitution.
We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. 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 are in agreement with Appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed. 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 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 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 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. 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 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; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
NO. 12-13-00148-CR
MICHEALLE BOSTON A/K/A MICHEALLE FRISON,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 217th District Court
of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2012-0096)
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., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.