Mark J. Wattles v. Minerva Partners, Ltd ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                   NO. 07-12-0209-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    AT AMARILLO
    PANEL B
    SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
    ______________________________
    SAMANTHA LEE AKA SAMANTHA DEANN LEE,
    Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    _________________________________
    FROM THE 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY;
    NO. B-08-0708-SB; HON. BEN WOODWARD, PRESIDING
    _______________________________
    Memorandum Opinion
    _______________________________
    Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMBPELL and HANCOCK, JJ.
    Samantha Lee aka Samantha DeAnn Lee (appellant) appeals her conviction for
    possession with intent to deliver. Appellant plead guilty and in exchange for her guilty
    plea was placed on ten years deferred adjudication community supervision.
    Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt to which appellant plead true
    without the benefit of a plea agreement. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and
    sentenced her to thirty-seven years in prison.
    Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an
    Anders 1 brief, wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she
    concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel
    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 file a response pro se. By letter dated July
    27, 2012, this court notified appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by
    August 27, 2012, if she wished to do so. Appellant filed a request for new counsel to be
    appointed. 2
    In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
    discussed two potential areas for appeal which included ineffective assistance of
    counsel and sufficiency of the evidence. However, counsel then proceeded to explain
    why the issues were without merit.
    In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of
    appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford
    v. State, 
    813 S.W.2d 508
    (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).                   After doing so, we concur with
    counsel’s conclusions.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion
    to withdraw.
    Brian Quinn
    Chief Justice
    Do not publish.
    1
    See Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
    , 744-45, 87 S.Ct.1396, 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 493
    (1967).
    2
    We deny appellant’s request for appointment of new counsel.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-12-00096-CV

Filed Date: 9/19/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/16/2015