Sandria Lynn Sheldon v. State ( 2006 )

                                                NO. 12-06-00110-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SANDRIA LYNN SHELDON,         §                      APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Sandria Lynn Sheldon appeals the trial court’s revocation of her community supervision following her conviction for driving while intoxicated, a third degree felony.¹  After revoking her community supervision, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for eight years. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in 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

            Appellant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated.  It was further alleged in the indictment that Appellant was previously convicted on two prior occasions for  driving while intoxicated.  Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged.  The trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ten years, but suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on community supervision for ten years.

            On February 17, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision alleging that Appellant had violated certain conditions thereof.  Specifically, the State alleged, in pertinent part, that Appellant violated the following terms of her community supervision:  (1) on or about February 21, 2006, she failed to obey the law by operating a motor vehicle in a public place while intoxicated; (2) on or about February 13, 2006, she used or consumed methamphetamine; and (3) on or about February 13, 2006, she possessed methamphetamine.

            On March 17, 2006, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion.  Appellant pleaded “true” to each of the aforementioned violations alleged in the State’s motion to revoke.²  The trial court found these allegations to be “true,” revoked Appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for eight years.  This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in 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). Appellant’s counsel states that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. She further relates that she is well acquainted with the facts in this case.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.³  We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

            As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  We carried the motion for consideration with the merits.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered December 1, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ The indictment alleged two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated.  See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §§ 12.34, 49.04, 49.09(b)(2) (Vernon 2003 & Supp. 2006).

² The trial court admonished Appellant that her community supervision could be revoked if any of the allegations in the State’s motion were found to be true.

³ Counsel for Appellant certified in her motion to withdraw that she provided Appellant with a copy of this brief.  Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause.  The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.