Opinion
13-21-00190-CR
01-06-2022
CANDICE B. SEGOVIA A/K/A CANDICE SEGOVIA A/K/A CANDICE BROOKE JOHNSON A/K/A CANDICE JOHNSON, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
Do not publish. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).
On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.
Before Justices Hinojosa, Tijerina, and Silva
MEMORANDUM OPINION
JAIME TIJERINA JUSTICE
Appellant Candice B. Segovia a/k/a Candice Segovia a/k/a Candice Brooke Johnson a/k/a Candice Johnson appeals the trial court's revocation of her community supervision. Segovia pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance in penalty group one, namely, methamphetamine in the amount of less than one gram, a state jail felony. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(b). The trial court deferred adjudication and placed Segovia on community supervision for three years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke community supervision, and Segovia pleaded "true" to eleven of the State's allegations. The trial court revoked community supervision, adjudicated Segovia guilty, and sentenced her to twelve months' incarceration. Segovia's court appointed attorney has filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
Specifically, Segovia pleaded "true" to allegations that she failed to report to the community supervision officer of Bee County, Texas on several occasions, failed to submit to urinalysis drug testing on several occasions, and intentionally used a controlled substance during the period of community supervision. At the revocation hearing, Segovia admitted she ingested methamphetamine and tested positive for it during the period of community supervision. She also acknowledged that she failed to report to her community supervision officer after she tested positive.
I. Anders Brief
Pursuant to Anders v. California, Segovia's court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel's brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.") (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Segovia's counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error in the trial court's judgment. Segovia's counsel has also informed this Court that Segovia has been (1) notified that counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed of her rights to file a pro se response, review the record preparatory to filing that response, and seek discretionary review if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record with instructions to file the motion within ten days. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at 319-20, Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Segovia has not filed a pro se response.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that a pro se response should identify those issues the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether meritorious issues exist and is not required to comply with the appellate rules. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696-97 (Tex. App.-Waco 1997, no pet.)).
II. Independent Review
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and counsel's brief, and we have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See id. at 827-28 ("Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III. Motion to Withdraw
In accordance with Anders, Segovia's attorney has asked this Court for permission to withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 ("[I]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous." (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.- Dallas 1995, no pet.) (citations omitted))). We grant counsel's motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court's opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court's judgment to Segovia and to advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Segovia wish to seek further review of this case by 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 from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. A 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 should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See id. R. 68.4.
IV. Conclusion
We affirm the trial court's judgment.