Shanita Marie Fletcher v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-25-00357-CR

SHANITA MARIE FLETCHER, APPELLANT V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 372nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas1

Trial Court No. 1848799, Honorable Julie Lugo, Presiding

August 26, 2026

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.

Appellant, Shanita Marie Fletcher, appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding her guilty of assault on a public servant.2 Her court-appointed counsel has filed a motion

1 This cause was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court

by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. Where there is a conflict with the precedent of this Court, this appeal has been decided in accordance with the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3; Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251, 254 (Tex. 2022).

2 TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(a)(3) & (b)(1).

to withdraw supported by a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California,3 concluding that no arguable grounds for reversal exist. After conducting an independent review of the record, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

BACKGROUND

On October 17, 2024, Alexandra Miranda was working as a detention officer in the Tarrant County Jail and was working in the unit where Appellant was housed. Miranda gave Appellant a lawful order to close her cell door, which Appellant refused. Miranda backed away from Appellant and told the other inmates to get in their cells, as she was about to call a code. Appellant approached her, cursing at her. Miranda ordered Appellant to stop, warning that she would spray her with O.C. spray if she took one more step. When Appellant continued to approach, Miranda sprayed her with the spray. Appellant then began hitting Miranda, who defended herself. Miranda testified that Appellant struck her with fists and caused her bodily injury, in that she was bleeding from the assault.

On October 16, 2025, Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charged offense. At trial Appellant testified in her own defense. Appellant disputed that the argument concerned closing the cell door, but she agreed with Miranda’s testimony that the argument was over her cell door. Appellant further testified that she admitted to striking Miranda after being sprayed with O.C. spray, but that she did not remember who hit whom first.

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

appellate counsel, after a conscientious examination of the record, concludes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Id.

3

During the bench trial, the court heard and evaluated the evidence presented by both sides before ultimately finding the defendant guilty. The trial court sentenced Appellant to two years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely filed a Motion for New Trial/Motion in Arrest of Judgment on October 22, 2025, which was overruled by operation of law. Appellant timely filed her Notice of Appeal on October 17, 2025.

ANDERS FRAMEWORK

An Anders brief must present a professional evaluation of the record and explain why the appeal presents no arguable grounds for reversal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel need not identify specific arguable points where none exist, but the brief must include record references and pertinent legal authorities. Id.; Davis v. State, 683 S.W.3d 828, 829–30 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2023, no pet.). Counsel must also serve the client with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw and inform the client of the right to file a pro se response and a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408; see also 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). This Court, in turn, must independently examine the entire record to determine whether any nonfrivolous issue exists. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).

Appellate counsel’s brief meets the necessary requirements. In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no grounds that could be argued non-

4

frivolously on appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error and no arguable grounds for relief. Counsel has also demonstrated he has complied with the requirements by (1) providing copies of the brief and the appellate record to Appellant, (2) notifying her of the right to file a pro se response if she desired to do so, and (3) informing her of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

By letter dated May 15, 2026, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to exercise her right to file a response to counsel’s motion. As this original letter was returned to the Court undelivered, another letter was sent on July 15, 2026, with a deadline for response being August 14, 2026. Appellate counsel filed an extension request on behalf of Appellant requesting seven additional days to submit her response. Appellant was granted an extension until August 21, 2026, to file her response. To date, Appellant has neither filed a response nor otherwise contacted the Court. The State has not favored us with a brief.

ANALYSIS

By his Anders brief, counsel evaluated jurisdiction, the sufficiency of the evidence, all phases of the proceedings, all adverse rulings, including Appellant’s evidentiary objections, and sentencing. He candidly discussed potential issues and conceded no errors occurred during trial which would require reversal of Appellant’s conviction and sentence. Thus, he concluded there are no non-frivolous issues to present on appeal, and the appeal is without merit and wholly frivolous.

5

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief. Our independent review confirms appellate counsel’s assessment that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). So, after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we (1) agree that there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction, (2) affirm the trial court’s judgment, and (3) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Laura A. W. Pratt

Justice

Do not publish.

4 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 his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is informational and 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.