Tiena Oriena Neighbors v. State

NO. 12-18-00018-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
TIENA ORIENA NEIGHBORS, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Tiena Oriena Neighbors appeals her conviction for forgery. 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 forgery and pleaded “guilty” in exchange for
the State’s plea recommendation of six years deferred adjudication community supervision. The
trial court followed the State’s recommendation, deferred finding Appellant “guilty,” and placed
her on community supervision for six years pursuant to certain terms and conditions. Thereafter,
the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of
her community supervision. At a hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant pleaded “true” to
several allegations in the motion, and the State abandoned the remaining allegations. The trial
court found the State’s allegations “true,” found Appellant “guilty” of forgery, revoked her
community supervision, and sentenced her to five years imprisonment. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he diligently reviewed and evaluated the appellate record
and found no error for our review. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief contains a thorough professional evaluation of the
record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.1
We considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record.
Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error.
CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the
merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise her of her right to file a petition for
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on her behalf or she must file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was
overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must
be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
1
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). Appellant was given time to file her own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief
has been filed.
2
Opinion delivered November 28, 2018.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
3
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
NO. 12-18-00018-CR
TIENA ORIENA NEIGHBORS,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 7th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0321-17)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.