Barbara Evonne Hill v. State

NO. 07-08-0468-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B FEBRUARY 27, 2009 ______________________________ BARBARA EVONNE HILL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 252ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NO. B17507-0801; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING _______________________________ Anders Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Barbara Evonne Hill (appellant) appeals her conviction for possession of a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school, enhanced. Punishment was assessed by the jury at sixty years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division. Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that appellant’s appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has 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 appeal pro se. By letter dated January 16, 2009, this court notified appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by February 17, 2009, if she wished to do so. To date, appellant has not filed a response. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed one possible ground for appeal, that being the sufficiency of the evidence to support guilt. However, appellate counsel, after reviewing the evidence presented at trial, found the evidence to be both legally and factually sufficient. Thereafter, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any error, reversible or otherwise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), and concluded the same. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgm ent, along with notification of appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 48.4. 2