eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2016-01

Linda Gaile Henderson-Qualls v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  • Opinion issued January 28, 2016
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00934-CR
———————————
LINDA GAILE HENDERSON-QUALLS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 182nd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1370183
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Linda Gaile Henderson-Qualls, pleaded guilty to the offense of
theft from a nonprofit organization, pursuant to one scheme or a continuing course
of conduct, without an agreed recommendation from the State regarding punishment.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(a), (e)(6)(A), (f)(3)(B) (West Supp. 2015);
    id. § 31.09 
    (West 2011). The trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment
at 10 years’ confinement. The trial court certified that this is not a plea bargain case
and that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along
with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and the appeal is
without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738
    ,
    87 S. Ct. 1396 
    (1967).
Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional
evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal
authority. See
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    , 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly
reviewed the record and is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant
reversal. See
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    , 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State,
    193 S.W.3d 153
    , 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we
conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds
for review, and the appeal is frivolous. See
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 744
    , 87 S. Ct. at
1400 (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) (reviewing court must determine
2
whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826–
27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same);
    Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 
    (reviewing court
determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). We note
that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for
appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See
    Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 
    & n.6.
We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to
withdraw.1 Attorney Kurt B. Wentz must immediately send appellant the required
notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P.
6.5(c).
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
1
Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal
and that she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson,
    956 S.W.2d 25
    , 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).
3