Sonye Shields v. State ( 2016 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-15-00344-CR
SONYE SHIELDS, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 100th District Court
Donley County, Texas
Trial Court No. 3852, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding
June 23, 2016
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant, Sonye Shields, entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the offense of
possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of four grams or
more but less than 200 grams.1 Pursuant to the plea agreement, appellant was placed
on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five years and ordered to
pay a fine of $3000 plus all costs of court. Subsequently, the State filed an original and
first amended application to adjudicate appellant guilty. Appellant entered a plea of “Not
1
See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d) (West 2010).
True” to the allegations contained in the first amended application to adjudicate. After
hearing the evidence, the trial court found that two allegations were true and
adjudicated appellant guilty. Following a hearing on the issue of punishment, the trial
court assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 20 years. Appellant has perfected her appeal
and we will affirm.
Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in
his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be
predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities,
there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he
has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and
appropriately advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response in this matter.
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also
advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel
has certified that he has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in
preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed no response.
By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an
appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and
made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any
2
arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,
109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the
appeal is frivolous.2
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Mackey K. Hancock
Justice
Do not publish.
2
Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the
opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.
3