Roxie Denise Lane v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: January 13, 2026
• Docket: 01-25-00272-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued January 13, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00272-CR ——————————— ROXIE DENISE LANE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 96490-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal arises from a motor-vehicle collision with a bicyclist that resulted

in the death of the bicyclist. Roxie Denise Lane, the driver of the vehicle, pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense of failure to stop and render aid.1 And a

jury assessed her punishment at confinement for three years. Lane appealed.

On appeal, Lane’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along

with an Anders brief, stating that the record presents no reversible error and that the

appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744

(1967).

In his brief, counsel states that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and is

unable to advance any ground of error that warrants reversal. See id.; In re Schulman,

252 S.W.3d 403, 406–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153,

155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel’s brief meets the

Anders requirements because it presents a professional evaluation of the record and

supplies this Court with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386

U.S. at 744; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

Further, Lane’s counsel informed this Court that he mailed a copy of the

motion to withdraw and Anders brief to Lane and informed her of her right to access

the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313,

319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408–09.2

1 See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 550.021. 2 Subsequently, this Court also notified Lane at her last known address of her right to access the record and file a response, and provided a form motion to access the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 321–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

2 Lane did not file a pro se response to the Anders brief.

The State filed a waiver of its right to file a response to the Anders brief.

We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal. See Mitchell,

193 S.W.3d at 155. We conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that

there are no arguable grounds for review, and that the appeal is frivolous. See Anders,

386 U.S. at 744 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel—determines,

after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner

v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d

824, 826–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

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

withdraw.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a). Attorney Perry Stevens must immediately

send the required notice and file a copy of that notice with the Clerk of this Court.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

3 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform Lane of the result of this appeal and that she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review. See id. at 827 & n.6. 3