Wanda Kay Follis v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 29, 2010
• Docket: 12-08-00427-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-08-00427-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS WANDA KAY FOLLIS, ' APPEAL FROM THE 173RD APPELLANT ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Wanda Kay Follis appeals her conviction for burglary of a habitation. Appellant pleaded guilty and the trial court assessed punishment at ten years of imprisonment. Appellant=s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismiss Appellant=s appeal.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case and has diligently reviewed the appellate record. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant=s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant=s counsel is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have considered counsel=s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record. We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION As required, Appellant=s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant=s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and we dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09. Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in the case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered January 29, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)