Opinion
No. 04-16-00477-CR
04-12-2017
Cassey Marie MORADO, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014CR2407
Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED
Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, appellant Cassey Marie Morado pled nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court placed Morado on ten years deferred adjudication community supervision and assessed a fine of $1,500.00, which was also deferred. Six months later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate and revoke community supervision, alleging Morado violated several of the terms and conditions of her community supervision; the State, however, subsequently withdrew its motion. The State later filed another motion to adjudicate and revoke community supervision, again alleging Morado violated numerous conditions of her community supervision. Morado pled true to several of the alleged violations, and the trial court continued Morado on deferred adjudication. Subsequently, the State filed a third motion to adjudicate and revoke community supervision, alleging Morado violated numerous conditions of her community supervision. Morado pled true to one of the alleged violations. The trial court then found Morado violated the terms of her community supervision, adjudicated her guilty, revoked her community supervision, and sentenced her to three years in prison and assessed a $1,500.00 fine. Morado perfected this appeal.
Morado's court-appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in which he raises one minimally arguable point of error, but nonetheless concludes this appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Morado was provided with a copy of the brief and informed of her right to obtain a copy of the appellate record and file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 23, 1997, no pet.). Appointed counsel provided Morado with a form which she could sign, date, and file with this court in order to obtain a copy of the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Morado filed a request for the record, and a copy of the record was provided to her on November 2, 2016. See id. At no point, however, did she file a pro se brief. See id.
After reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we find no reversible error and agree with counsel the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We therefore grant the motion to withdraw filed by Morado's counsel and affirm the trial court's judgment. See id.; Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Morado wish to seek further review of this case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after either the day our judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration is 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 id. R. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review must comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. R. 68.4.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH