Audreka Lynn Turner v. State

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedMarch 21, 2012
Docket10-11-00020-CR
StatusPublished

This text of Audreka Lynn Turner v. State (Audreka Lynn Turner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Audreka Lynn Turner v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00020-CR

AUDREKA LYNN TURNER, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 361st District Court Brazos County, Texas Trial Court No. 09-03568-CRF-361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Audreka Turner entered an open guilty plea to the state-jail felony offense of

theft of property valued at less than $1,500 with two prior theft convictions. The trial

court assessed a fifteen-month state-jail term. Turner appealed.

Turner’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an

Anders brief, asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in

her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Turner filed a pro se response; however, she does not raise any

arguable issues. The State waived the filing of a brief. We will affirm.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, []

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400;

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is

“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy

v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must send Turner

a copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Turner’s last known

address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify Turner of her right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, effective upon

counsel’s compliance with the aforementioned notification requirement as evidenced by

“a letter [to this Court] certifying [her] compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

REX D. DAVIS Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2012 Do not publish [CR25]

Turner v. State Page 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
486 U.S. 429 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Ex Parte Owens
206 S.W.3d 670 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Stafford v. State
813 S.W.2d 503 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Audreka Lynn Turner v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/audreka-lynn-turner-v-state-texapp-2012.