Kelly Cobb v. State ( 2019 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-18-00364-CR
KELLY COBB,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 77th District Court
Freestone County, Texas
Trial Court No. 18-042-CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Kelly Cobb confessed to the charge of driving while intoxicated—third
or more (habitual) and was sentenced to a term of incarceration of forty years. Cobb
appeals her conviction and sentence. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L. Ed. 2d
493 (1967), Cobb’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and motion to
withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no grounds of
error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements
of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (“In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’
points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts
and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities.”) (citing Hawkins v. State,
112 S.W.3d 340, 343-44 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.)); Stafford v. State, 813
S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.]
1978), Cobb’s counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is
no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he
has: (1) examined the record and found no arguable grounds to advance on appeal; (2)
served a copy of the brief and counsel’s motion to withdraw on Cobb; and (3) informed
Cobb of her right to review the record and to file a pro se response.1 See Anders, 386 U.S.
at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409
n.23. More than an adequate period of time has passed, and Cobb has not filed a pro se
response. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
1Counsel has informed this Court that he has provided the record to Cobb. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 321-22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
Cobb v. State Page 2
75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record and
counsel’s brief and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. See
Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of
Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs
and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the
requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509. The
judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
In accordance with Anders, Cobb’s attorney has asked this Court for permission to
withdraw as counsel for Cobb. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see also
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (quoting Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.) (“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must
withdraw from representing the appellant. To withdraw from representation, the
appointed attorney must file a motion to withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the
appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.
Within five days of the date of this Court’s opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of
this opinion and this Court’s judgment to Cobb and to advise her of her right to file a
petition for discretionary review.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
at 412 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
2 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Cobb 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 must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must
Cobb v. State Page 3
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Neill
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed April 10, 2019
Do not publish
[CRPM]
be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or from the date the last timely motion for rehearing
was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition and all copies of the petition for
discretionary review must be filed with the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. 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; see also Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22.
Cobb v. State Page 4