Opinion
No. 06-12-00089-CR
10-12-2012
JANELLE MARY HENDERSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court
Harrison County, Texas
Trial Court No. 07-0172X
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After numerous chances to fulfill the terms of community supervision, Janelle Mary Henderson has now had her community supervision revoked and has been sentenced to serve time in confinement. Henderson appeals that revocation and sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Initially, Henderson was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. That community supervision was later extended by a year. But then, Henderson was adjudicated guilty after violating the terms of her community supervision. After adjudicating Henderson's guilt, the trial court again placed her on community supervision. Henderson subsequently violated those terms, pled true to violating conditions of her community supervision, and was sentenced to four years' confinement.
Henderson's attorney on appeal has filed a brief that states he has reviewed the record, that sets out the course of the prosecution and revocation proceeding, and that concludes no issues could be raised. Counsel presents and discusses two issues, but has also explained accurately why those issues would not prevail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel mailed a copy of the brief to Henderson July 30, 2012, along with a copy of his motion to withdraw and his letter informing Henderson of her right to file a pro se response and to review the record. Henderson has filed no response or any request for additional time in which to prepare a response. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk's record and the reporter's record, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel's assessment that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
It is not a critical point, but we note that counsel should not pray for reversal in a brief filed in support of a motion to withdraw from a frivolous appeal. Johnson v. State, 885 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tex. App.—Waco 1994, pet. ref'd) (citing Smith v. State, 814 S.W.2d 858, 859 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 1991, no pet.); Cantu v. State, 781 S.W.2d 953, 953 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, no pet.)).
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 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 or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of 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.
--------
Josh R. Morriss, III
Chief Justice
Do Not Publish