Crystal Smith v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 30, 2024
• Docket: 10-23-00334-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00334-CR

CRYSTAL SMITH, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. F156-23

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court found Crystal Smith violated four terms and conditions of her

deferred adjudication community supervision on three counts of the state jail felony

offense of endangering a child. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 22.041. As a result, the trial

court found Smith guilty of each count, assessed Smith’s punishment at 24 months

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice State Jail Division on each

count, and ordered that they run concurrently. See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN. § 12.35. This

appeal ensued. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Smith’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in

support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and

that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.

1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the

record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We

conclude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]

1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, 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; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300

(1988); 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, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d

440 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined the

appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Smith is granted.

MATT JOHNSON Justice

Smith v. State Page 2 Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed May 30, 2024 Do not publish [CR25]

Smith v. State Page 3