Loflin v. State

Full title: VELMA S. LOFLIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court: COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B

Date published: Jan 17, 2012

NO. 07-11-0307-CR (Tex. App. Jan. 17, 2012)

Opinion

NO. 07-11-0307-CR

01-17-2012

VELMA S. LOFLIN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Brian Quinn

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A15763-0410; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID JR., PRESIDING

Anders Opinion

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

Appellant Velma S. Loflin was found guilty of theft after a plea of guilty and, in accordance with a plea bargain, sentenced to two years confinement, probated for five years. The State later filed a motion to revoke her probation and, after a plea of true to the alleged violations, she was sentenced to two years confinement.

Appellant's appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders¹brief, wherein he certified that after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel attached 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 or brief pro se. By letter dated December 9, 2011, this court notified appellant of her right to tender her brief or response and set January 9, 2012, as the deadline to do so. To date, appellant has filed neither a response, brief, or request for an extension.

1

In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed his review of the original plea proceedings, an order extending appellant's community supervision, the sufficency of the evidence to support the revocation of appellant's probation, the punishment assessed, and the time credited to appellant's sentence. Counsel also explained why he found no error with respect to these matters.

We have additionally conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to uncover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.3d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to reveal reversible error.

Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice
Do not publish.

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