Opinion
07-23-00098-CR
11-09-2023
JANINE LADAWN MESSENGER, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
Do not publish.
On Appeal from the 69th District Court Hartley County, Texas Trial Court No. 1687H, Honorable Kimberly Allen, Presiding
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JUDY C. PARKER, JUSTICE
A jury convicted Appellant, Janine LaDawn Messenger, of theft. Pursuant to an agreement, the trial court sentenced Appellant to sixteen months in state jail, suspended in favor of five years of community supervision, and payment of restitution in the amount of $7,247.09 and a fine of $1,000. Appellant's appointed counsel on appeal has filed an Anders brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We affirm the judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant, counsel notified her of his motion to withdraw; provided her with a copy of the motion, Anders brief, and motion to access the appellate record; and informed her of her right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel's obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of her right to file a pro se response to counsel's Anders brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a brief.
By his Anders brief, counsel evaluates the proceedings and concedes there are no errors on which relief may be granted. We have independently examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Following our review of the appellate record and counsel's brief, we conclude there are no grounds for appellate review that would result in reversal of Appellant's conviction or sentence.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court's judgment and grant counsel's motion to withdraw. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).
Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. it is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel's motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.