From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Norris v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Jul 8, 2014
NO. 03-13-00469-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 8, 2014)

Opinion

NO. 03-13-00469-CR

07-08-2014

Jacqueline Kae Norris, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee


FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 70429, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Jacqueline Kae Norris pled guilty before a jury to the offense of intoxication manslaughter with a motor vehicle. Tex. Penal Code §49.08(a)(1). The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the trial court sentenced her to ten years' imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. Appellant's appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders, 386 U.S. at 743-44; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant's attorney sent appellant a copy of the brief and advised her that she had the right to examine the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972).

After reviewing the evidence presented to the trial court and the procedures that were observed, we have found nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel's motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.

No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of her case by the 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. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the court of criminal appeals along with the rest of the filings in the cause. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4, 68.5.

__________

David Puryear, Justice
Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin and Field Affirmed Do Not Publish


Summaries of

Norris v. State

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Jul 8, 2014
NO. 03-13-00469-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 8, 2014)
Case details for

Norris v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jacqueline Kae Norris, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

Court:TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

Date published: Jul 8, 2014

Citations

NO. 03-13-00469-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 8, 2014)