Finley v. State

Full title: JULIA HELENE FINLEY, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Court: Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

Date published: Dec 18, 2013

No. 07-13-00284-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 18, 2013)

Opinion

No. 07-13-00284-CR

12-18-2013

JULIA HELENE FINLEY, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Brian Quinn

On Appeal from the 181st District Court

Randall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23941-B, Honorable Lee Waters, Presiding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant, Julia Helene Finley, appeals her conviction for felony theft. Appellant pled guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain. She had the trial court assess punishment which was assessed at twelve years in prison. Appellant appealed.

Appellant's appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders ¹ brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel's belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to file a response pro se. By letter dated November 6, 2013, this court notified appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by December 6, 2013, if she wished to do so. Appellant filed a response wherein she requested the appointment of new appellate counsel and challenged her sentence.

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct.1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal which included voluntariness of her guilty plea and ineffective assistance of counsel. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issues were without merit.

In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re Shulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We also reviewed appellant's complaint about her sentence. Upon undertaking these tasks, we too find no arguable error supported by the record before us.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.² Furthermore, appellant's request for new appellate counsel is denied as moot.

2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
--------

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice
Do not publish.