Janelle Vanei Loggins v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 7, 2013
• Docket: 02-12-00197-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

02-12-197,098CR

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00197-CR

Janelle Vanei Loggins v. The State of Texas

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1 of Tarrant County (1266511W) March 7, 2013 Per Curiam (nfp)

JUDGMENT

          This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there was no error in the trial court’s judgment.  It is ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM

NO. 02-12-00198-CR

Janelle Vanei Loggins		APPELLANT
The State of Texas		STATE

----------

FROM Criminal District Court No. 1 OF Tarrant COUNTY

MEMORANDUM OPINION[1]

Appellant Janelle Vanei Loggins appeals her convictions for attempted evading arrest or detention and for endangering a child – criminal negligence after the trial court revoked her deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to six months’ confinement in each case, to be served concurrently.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 22.041(c), 38.04 (West 2011 & Supp. 2012).

          Loggins’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief.  This court afforded Loggins the opportunity to file a pro se brief on her own behalf, but she did not do so.  The State did not file a brief.

As the reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeals are frivolous.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 904 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.).  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.  See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief.  We agree with counsel that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that arguably might support an appeal.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).  Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

PER CURIAM

PANEL:  WALKER, GARDNER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  March 7, 2013

---

[1]See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.