Barbara Blackmore v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 27, 2002
• Docket: 13-02-00061-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                  NUMBER 13-02-00061-CR

                             COURT OF APPEALS

                   THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                      CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG

BARBARA ELAINE BLACKMORE,                                  Appellant,

                                                   v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                                       Appellee.

                       On appeal from the County Court at Law

                               of San Patricio County, Texas.

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Dorsey, Hinojosa, and Rodriguez

                                 Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

After a bench trial, the trial court found appellant, Barbara Elaine Blackmore, guilty of the offense of assault^[1] and assessed her punishment at confinement in the county jail for 365 days.  However, the court suspended the order of confinement and placed appellant on community supervision for a term of twelve months.  As this is a memorandum opinion not designated for publication and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

                                              A.  Appellant=s Appeal

Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), as it presents a professional evaluation of why there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (citing High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978)).

Upon reviewing the brief, we noted that counsel had served appellant with a copy of the brief, but we found nothing in counsel=s brief or the appellate record showing that counsel had advised appellant of her right to review the record and to file a pro se brief.  See McMahon v. State, 529 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).  Accordingly, on August 29, 2002, we abated this appeal to allow counsel to notify appellant of her right to review the record, and to file a pro se brief, if she so desired.

On October 21, 2002, counsel notified this Court that he had advised appellant of her right to request the record and to file her own brief.  To date, appellant has not filed a pro se brief.

Upon receiving a Afrivolous appeal@ brief, appellate courts must conduct Aa full examination of all the proceeding[s] to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.@  Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).  We have carefully reviewed the appellate record and counsel=s brief, find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and agree with appellant=s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit.  See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                     B.  Counsel=s Motion to Withdraw

In accordance with Anders, appellant=s attorney has asked permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant.  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744.  We grant the attorney=s motion to withdraw.  We order appellant=s attorney to notify appellant of the disposition of this appeal and of the availability of discretionary review.  See Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed this the

27^th day of November, 2002.

---

^[1] Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 22.01 (Vernon Supp. 2002).