Christy Wedgeworth v. the State of Texas ( 2023 )

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-23-00008-CR
CHRISTY WEDGEWORTH, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 5th District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 21F1055-005
Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A Bowie County jury convicted Christy Wedgeworth of injury to a child by omission and
assessed a sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04 (Supp.).
Wedgeworth appeals.1
Wedgeworth’s attorney filed a brief stating that he reviewed the record and found no
genuinely arguable issues that could be raised on appeal. The brief sets out the procedural
history of the case and summarizes the evidence elicited during the trial court proceedings.
Since counsel provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
arguable grounds to be advanced, that evaluation meets the requirements of Anders v. California.
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 743–44 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509–10 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).
Counsel also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal.
On June 16, 2023, counsel mailed to Wedgeworth copies of the brief, the appellate
record, and the motion to withdraw. Wedgeworth was informed of her rights to review the
record and file a pro se response. By letter dated June 16, this Court informed Wedgeworth that
any pro se response was due on or before July 17. On August 3, this Court further informed
Wedgeworth that the case would be set for submission on the briefs on August 24. We received
neither a pro se response from Wedgeworth nor a motion requesting an extension of time in
which to file such a response.
1
In cause number 06-23-00009-CR, Wedgeworth appeals her conviction for injury to a child by omission causing
serious bodily injury.
2
We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently
reviewed the entire appellate record and, like counsel, have determined that no arguable issue
supports an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). In
the Anders context, once we determine that the appeal is without merit, we must affirm the trial
court’s judgment. Id.We affirm the judgment of the trial court.2
Charles van Cleef
Justice
Date Submitted: August 24, 2023
Date Decided: August 25, 2023
Do Not Publish
2
Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s
request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute
counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition
for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the
date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court, see TEX.
R. APP. P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3,
and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, see TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.4.
3