eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2015-07

Shadondra Jenkins v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                                  NO. 12-14-00295-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
SHADONDRA JENKINS,                              §      APPEAL FROM THE 159TH
APPELLANT
V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Shadondra Jenkins appeals her convictions for injury to a child. Appellant’s counsel filed
a brief asserting 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 affirm.
BACKGROUND
An Angelina County grand jury returned a two count indictment against Appellant for the
offenses of injury to a child. With no agreement on punishment, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to
both counts in the indictment. After ordering and receiving the presentence investigation report,
the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
found Appellant “guilty” of two counts of injury to a child and assessed punishment at 114
months of imprisonment. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, and states
that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and
High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807 
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a thorough
chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is
unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.1 See
    Anders, 386 U.S. at 745
    , 87 S. Ct. at 1400;
    Gainous, 436 S.W.2d at 138
    ; see also Penson v. Ohio,
    488 U.S. 75
    , 80,
    109 S. Ct. 346
    , 350,
    102 L. Ed. 2d 300 
    (1988).
We have considered counsel’s brief, and have also conducted our own independent
review of the appellate record. We 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 agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly
frivolous. Accordingly, we grant his motion for leave to withdraw, and affirm the judgment of
the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
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 him of his 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. See
    id. at 408 
    n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed
within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last
timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a).
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 July 31, 2015.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1
Counsel states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief. Appellant
was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such brief has expired, and we have received
no pro se brief.
2
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
JULY 31, 2015
NO. 12-14-00295-CR
SHADONDRA JENKINS,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 159th District Court
of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2013-0615)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.