From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stueart v. State

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Aug 4, 2016
No. 11-16-00003-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 4, 2016)

Opinion

No. 11-16-00003-CR

08-04-2016

JANICE REED STUEART, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 90th District Court Stephens County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F34394

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Based upon an open plea of guilty, the trial court convicted Appellant, Janice Reed Stueart, of the offense of theft by a public servant of $100,000 or more but less than $200,000, a first-degree felony. The jury assessed Appellant's punishment at confinement for seven years and a fine of $10,000, and the trial court sentenced her accordingly. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy of the motion to withdraw, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel's brief. A response has not been filed. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.

This court granted Appellant thirty days in which to exercise her right to file a response to counsel's brief. --------

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 ("In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant's right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68."). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM August 4, 2016 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.


Summaries of

Stueart v. State

State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals
Aug 4, 2016
No. 11-16-00003-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 4, 2016)
Case details for

Stueart v. State

Case Details

Full title:JANICE REED STUEART, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:State of Texas in the Eleventh Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 4, 2016

Citations

No. 11-16-00003-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 4, 2016)