Kathie Meadows Spears v. State

                                                                                                        NO. 12-07-00168-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KATHIE MEADOWS SPEARS,      §                      APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Kathy Meadows Spears appeals her conviction for theft, for which she was sentenced to imprisonment for two years, probated for five 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).  Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief.  We affirm.

Background

            Appellant was charged by indictment with theft and pleaded “not guilty.”  The matter proceeded to trial before the court.¹  Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged.   After a trial on punishment was conducted, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for two years, but probated Appellant’s sentence for five years. 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 states that he 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.  He further relates that he 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. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s Anders 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.

            Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which she raised the following issues:  (1) Appellant received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) Appellant was not permitted to personally elect between a bench trial and a jury trial; (3) the trial court erroneously refused to admit a deposit slip into evidence, which would have proved Appellant’s innocence; (4) the evidence consisted of a “typed in computer print out” and “copy of record missed posted[;]” and (5) the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.²  We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).                                                                                                            

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 having found 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 January 9, 2008.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

---

¹ During trial, Appellant indicated a desire to change her plea to “guilty.”  Thereafter, upon receiving Appellant’s presentence investigation report, the trial court noted on the record the inclusion of a letter in which Appellant indicated that she did not believe she was guilty of the offense.  The trial court questioned Appellant in this regard and subsequently set aside Appellant’s guilty plea.  The trial court then recommended the presentation of the remainder of the evidence in the case.

² We have construed Appellant’s statement of issues liberally in the interest of justice.