From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McLendon v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Dec 14, 2011
No. 06-11-00138-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2011)

Opinion

No. 06-11-00138-CR

12-14-2011

TRICHA ANN MCLENDON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District Court

Red River County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR00974


Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tricha Ann McLendon appeals from the revocation of her community supervision and final adjudication as guilty of possession of a controlled substance in a quantity less than one gram. The trial court found the allegations true and sentenced her to two years in a state jail facility.

McLendon's attorney on appeal has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail, providing possible issues, but explaining why they cannot succeed. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, 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 and a letter to McLendon September 28, 2011, informing McLendon of her right to file a pro se response and of her right to review the record. No response has been filed. 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).

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. (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11-104, effective Sept. 1, 2011). 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


Summaries of

McLendon v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana
Dec 14, 2011
No. 06-11-00138-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2011)
Case details for

McLendon v. State

Case Details

Full title:TRICHA ANN McLENDON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

Date published: Dec 14, 2011

Citations

No. 06-11-00138-CR (Tex. App. Dec. 14, 2011)