Cindy Marie Caynor v. State ( 2002 )

NO. 07-02-0316-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
DECEMBER 12, 2002
______________________________
CINDY MARIE CAYNOR,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 43,704-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESIDING
_______________________________
Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, SJ.1
Cindy Marie Caynor (appellant) appeals from a judgment revoking her community
supervision and adjudicating her guilty of aggravated assault against a public servant. We
affirm.
Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the above
referenced charge. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on ten
years community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to proceed with the
adjudication of guilt on the original charge to which appellant plead true to seven of the
1
John T. B oyd, C hief Justice (R et.), Se venth Co urt of Appeals, sitting by assignm ent. Tex. Gov’t Code
Ann. §75.00 2(a)(1) (V erno n Su pp. 2002 ).
nine allegations contained in the motion. The trial court found that appellant had violated
the terms of her community supervision, revoked that supervision, adjudicated her guilty
of aggravated robbery, and sentenced her to ten years imprisonment. Appellant timely
noticed her appeal and counsel was appointed. The latter moved to withdraw after filing
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493
(1967) and representing that she had searched the record and found no arguable grounds
for reversal. The motion and brief illustrated that appellant was informed of her rights to
review the appellate record and file her own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any
brief she cared to file had to be filed by December 8, 2002. To date, appellant has filed
no brief.
After conducting an independent review of the record, we find no reversible error.
Appellant represented to the court via the plea admonishment papers she signed that she
was 1) properly indicted, 2) represented by legal counsel, and 3) mentally competent when
she entered her plea. Moreover, no appeal was taken within 30 days from the date of
appellant’s guilty plea complaining of error occurring at that time. Thus, we have no
jurisdiction over any purported error arising from or prior to the plea hearing. Manuel v.
State, 944 S.W.2d 658, 661-62 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); see Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d
77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). Finally, appellant plead true to seven of the nine allegations
contained in the motion to adjudicate guilt, and the punishment levied was within the range
provided by statute.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
Brian Quinn
Do not publish. Justice
2