IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11-00102-CR
PAMELA LAVONNE STEWART,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 220th District Court
Bosque County, Texas
Trial Court No. 07-11-14199
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pamela Lavonne Stewart pled true to four allegations that she had violated the
terms and conditions of her community supervision which had been imposed for the
offense of possession of methamphetamine, less than one gram. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE ANN. § 481.115 (West 2010). Stewart pled not true to three allegations, and after a
revocation hearing, the trial court found two of those violations to be true. Stewart’s
community supervision was revoked, and Stewart was sentenced to twelve months
incarceration in the state jail.
Stewart’s appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw as
counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
Counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel informed Stewart of the right
to file a pro se brief, but Stewart has not done so.
Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error, and
we conclude that counsel performed the duties required of appointed counsel. Counsel
addressed the trial court’s jurisdiction, notice to Stewart of the proceedings, the
sufficiency of the evidence, and the effectiveness of the assistance of counsel. See
Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also
In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing Anders appeals, we must, “after a full examination of all the
proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders at 744; accord
Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Coronado v. State, 996
S.W.2d 283, 285 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, order) (per curiam), disp. on merits, 25 S.W.3d
806 (Tex. App.—Waco 2000, pet. ref’d). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without
merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429,
439 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when they
“cannot conceivably persuade the court.” McCoy, 486 U.S. at 436. An appeal is not
wholly frivolous when it is based on “arguable grounds.” Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511.
After a review of the briefs and the entire record in these appeals, we determine
that this appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d at 826-27.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Stewart v. State Page 2
Should Stewart wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, Stewart must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or Stewart must 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 that was overruled by this Court.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this
Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along
with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 409 n.22 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
Counsel’s request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Stewart
is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Stewart a copy of our decision, remind
Stewart of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court
a letter certifying counsel’s compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4.
TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n. 22.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed August 3, 2011
Do not publish
[CR25]
Stewart v. State Page 3