Monique Deniss Valles v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 20, 2023
• Docket: 07-23-00238-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00238-CR

MONIQUE DENNISS VALLES, APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 81st District Court Wilson County, Texas Trial Court No. CRW2104083, Honorable Lynn Ellison, Presiding

September 20, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ

Monique Denniss Valles appeals her conviction for evading arrest or detention

with a motor vehicle. Said conviction arose from her open plea of guilty to the charge.

After administering the requisite admonishments, the trial court accepted appellant’s plea,

found her guilty, and sentenced her to five years imprisonment. Her appointed counsel

1 This case was transferred from the Fourth Court of Appeals. We apply its precedent per Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 41.3. on appeal subsequently filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders 2 brief. We

grant counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflected no non-

frivolous error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with Schulman,

counsel discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no

reversible error.

Counsel further notified appellant of his motion to withdraw. So too did he provide

her with a copy of the motion, his Anders brief, a motion to access the appellate record,

and information about 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 by

September 8, 2023.

2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2 493 (1967).

2 To date, no response has been filed. We independently examined the record to

determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues upon which the appeal may be

predicated and found none. Therefore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm

the trial court’s judgment. 3

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.

3 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall 1) send appellant a copy of

the opinion and judgment and 2) inform appellant of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel is also directed to include in the communication the rules applicable to seeking such review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. He mistakenly informed his client about perfecting review by the Texas Supreme Court. This duty is only informational and ministerial. It does not encompass or require the rendition of legal advice or further representation.