Crystal Gideon v. State ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-13-00402-CR
CRYSTAL GIDEON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 100th District Court
Childress County, Texas
Trial Court No. 5382, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding
May 22, 2014
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
Appellant Crystal Gideon was convicted after a guilty plea of the state jail felony
of driving while intoxicated with a child passenger. She was sentenced to two years
confinement, but her sentence was probated for three years. The State subsequently
sought to revoke her probation alleging she had violated its terms and conditions.
Appellant pled true to three of the allegations, and the trial court revoked appellant’s
probation and sentenced her to eighteen months confinement in a state jail facility.
Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
Anders1 brief wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she has
concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with her brief, she has filed a
copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel’s belief that there was no
reversible error and of appellant’s right to appeal pro se. By letter, this court also
notified appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by May 7, 2014, if she
wished to do so. To date, no response has been received.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed each phase of the proceeding including 1) the indictment, 2) any adverse
pretrial rulings, 3) any adverse rulings during trial on objections or motions, 4) any
adverse rulings on post-trial motions, 5) the sufficiency of the evidence, 6) the
effectiveness of counsel, 7) any adverse rulings during the punishment phase on
objections or motions, 8) whether the sentence imposed was within the range of
punishment, and 9) whether the trial court abused its discretion in assessing a sentence
of eighteen months. Upon her final analysis, counsel determined that no reversible
error existed.
We have conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise,
pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) and Stafford v.
State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with
counsel’s conclusions.
1
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.2
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
2
Appellant as the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal
Appeals.
3