Shannon Dee Hargues v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: April 12, 2024
• Docket: 07-23-00196-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00196-CR

SHANNON DEE HARGUES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 84th District Court Ochiltree County, Texas Trial Court No. 5351, Honorable Curtis Brancheau, Presiding

April 12, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Shannon Dee Hargues appeals from the trial court’s order revoking her deferred

adjudication community supervision, adjudicating her guilty of the third-degree felony

offense of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and imposing sentence of nine

years imprisonment. Counsel initially appointed on appeal filed a motion to withdraw

supported by an Anders 1 brief. This court evaluated counsel’s motion and brief and

1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2 493 (1967). determined there was an arguable issue. It then remanded the cause to the trial court for

the appointment of new counsel.

Thereafter, newly appointed counsel also filed an Ander’s brief and motion to

withdraw, representing that he found no non-frivolous issues warranting an appeal. In

support of his motion, 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. So too did he address

the earlier issue resulting in remand and appointment of new counsel. The capias

establishing an element to the trial court’s jurisdiction was included in a supplemental

record.

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

her with a copy of the motion and the Anders brief and inform her of her right to file a pro

se response. 2 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). Appellant filed a pro se response.

We independently examined the record, including counsel’s brief and the pro se

response, to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues upon which the appeal

2 Appellant had previously been provided a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s records and informed

of her right to file a petition for discretionary review.

2 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. This duty is only informational and ministerial. It does not encompass or require the rendition of legal advice or further representation.