Katherine Rose Brant v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 31, 2025
• Docket: 07-24-00257-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00257-CR

KATHERINE ROSE BRANT, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 69th District Court Sherman County, Texas Trial Court No. 1122, Honorable Kimberly Allen, Presiding

January 31, 2025 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Appellant, Katherine Rose Brant, appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding

her guilty of possession of a controlled substance1 and sentencing her to a twenty-four-

month term of incarceration. Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a motion

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115. to withdraw supported by an Anders2 brief. We grant counsel’s motion and affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel has certified that he has conducted

a conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744; In re Schulman, 252

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the

controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. In a letter to Appellant,

counsel notified her of his motion to withdraw; provided her with a copy of the motion,

Anders brief, and a motion to access the appellate record; and informed her of her right

to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App.

2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw

supported by an Anders brief). By letter, this Court also advised Appellant of her right to

file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. Appellant has filed a response. The

State has not filed a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such

issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2 App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record, counsel’s brief, and

Appellant’s pro se response, we conclude that there are no grounds for appellate review

that would result in reversal of Appellant’s conviction or sentence.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.3

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.

3 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.