Bernice Davalos Rios v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 27, 2011
• Docket: 07-11-00092-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 07-11-0092-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BERNICE DAVALOS RIOS,

Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee _____________________________

FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 61,480-E; HONORABLE DOUGLAS WOODBURN, PRESIDING

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Memorandum Opinion --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Bernice Davalos Rios was convicted after a jury trial of theft of clothing in an amount of less than $1,500 with two prior convictions for theft and sentenced by the court to eighteen months in jail and a fine of $1,000. Appellant's appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders brief, wherein he certified that he has diligently searched the record and concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, counsel attached a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel's belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to file a brief or response pro se. By letter dated August 4, 2011, this court also informed appellant of her right to tender her own response and set September 6, 2011, as the deadline to do so. To date, we have received neither a response nor a request for extension of time to file a response. In compliance with Anders, appellate counsel has discussed three potential areas for appeal. They include 1) the sufficiency of the evidence, 2) whether the length of punishment was excessive, and 3) the effectiveness of trial counsel. However, he has explained why none of those arguments have merit. We have also conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel's conclusions and to discover any reversible error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our own review has failed to demonstrate reversible error. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.