Tatiana Leonard v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-20-00411-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
TATIANA LEONARD, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 214th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
Appellant Tatiana Leonard appeals her conviction for continuous violence against
a family member, a third-degree felony. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 25.11(a), (e). Leonard
entered a guilty plea and was placed on community supervision, deferred adjudication.
See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42A.101(a). Following a motion to revoke probation
and adjudicate guilt, Leonard pleaded not true to two allegations and true to four
allegations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found all of the allegations
true, revoked Leonard’s community supervision, adjudicated her guilty of the underlying
offense, and sentenced her to two years’ confinement in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice Institutional Division. Leonard’s court-appointed appellate counsel has
filed an Anders brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Pursuant to Anders, Leonard’s court-appointed appellate counsel filed a brief and
a motion to withdraw with this Court, stating that his review of the record yielded no
grounds of reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. See id. Counsel’s
brief meets the requirements of Anders as it presents a professional evaluation
demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal. See In re
Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 n.9 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“In Texas,
an Anders brief need not specifically advance ‘arguable’ points of error if counsel finds
none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set
out pertinent legal authorities.” (citing Hawkins v. State, 112 S.W.3d 340, 343–44 (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2003, no pet.))); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510
n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978) and Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), Leonard’s
counsel carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible error
in the trial court’s judgment. Leonard’s counsel also informed this Court in writing that he
2
(1) notified Leonard that counsel filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw;
(2) provided Leonard with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed Leonard of her rights to
file a pro se response, to review the record prior to filing a response, and to seek
discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals if this Court finds that the
appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided Leonard with a form motion for pro se access to the
appellate record with instructions to sign and file the motion with the court of appeals
within ten days by mailing it to the address provided. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly,
436 S.W.3d at 319–20; Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 510 n.3; see also In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 409 n.23. An adequate time has passed, and Leonard has not requested
access to the record nor filed a pro se response.
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the case is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.
75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the entire record, and we have found
nothing that would support a finding of reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d
824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in
the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for
reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule
of Appellate Procedure 47.1.”); Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 509.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, Leonard’s attorney asked this Court for permission to
withdraw as counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
3at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no
pet.)). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Within five days of the date of this Court’s
opinion, counsel is ordered to send a copy of this opinion and this Court’s judgment to
Leonard and to advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. 1 See TEX.
R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206
S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
IV. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
CLARISSA SILVA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed on the
31st day of March, 2022.
1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. If Leonard seeks further review of this case by the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals, she 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 must be filed within thirty
days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing or timely motion for en banc
reconsideration that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. A petition for discretionary review
must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.3. Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See
id. R. 68.4.
4