NUMBER 13-14-00676-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
DEBORAH ALFORD, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 94th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza and Longoria
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza
In 2006, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant Deborah Alford pleaded guilty to
delivery of less than one gram of cocaine, a state-jail felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY
CODE ANN. § 481.112(a), (b) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46, 2015 R.S.). The trial court
found appellant guilty, sentenced her to two years’ confinement in state jail, suspended
the sentence, and placed her on community supervision for a period of three years.
Appellant’s period of community supervision was extended numerous times.
In October of 2014, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community
supervision, alleging multiple violations of the conditions of her community supervision,
including the submission of a positive urine analysis on several occasions. At the
revocation hearing on November 3, 2014, appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s
allegations. The trial court found the allegations “true,” revoked appellant’s community
supervision, and sentenced her to two years’ confinement in a state jail facility. We affirm.
I. ANDERS BRIEF
Appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support
thereof in which he states that he has diligently reviewed the entire record and has found
no non-frivolous issues. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State,
573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Counsel’s brief meets the
requirements of Anders as it presents a thorough, professional evaluation showing why
there are no arguable grounds for advancing an appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 407 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.”); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en
banc).
In compliance with Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014),
counsel has carefully discussed why, under controlling authority, there is no reversible
error in the trial court's judgment. Counsel has informed this Court that he has (1) notified
appellant that he has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw; (2) provided
2
appellant with copies of both pleadings; (3) informed appellant of her rights to file a pro
se response,1 to review the record preparatory to filing that response, and to seek review
if we conclude that the appeal is frivolous; and (4) provided appellant with copies of the
clerk’s record and reporter’s record. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Kelly, 436 S.W.3d at
319–20. More than an adequate time has passed, and appellant has not filed a pro se
response.2
II. INDEPENDENT REVIEW
Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all the
proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488
U.S. 75, 80 (1988). We have reviewed the record and counsel’s motion to withdraw and
brief in support thereof, and we have found no 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 it considered the issues raised in the brief 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. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
III. MOTION TO WITHDRAW
In accordance with Anders, appellant’s appellate counsel has filed a motion to
withdraw. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has held that “the pro se response need not comply with
the rules of appellate procedure in order to be considered. Rather, the response should identify for the
court those issues which the indigent appellant believes the court should consider in deciding whether the
case presents any meritorious issues.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 409 n.23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)
(orig. proceeding) (quoting Wilson v. State, 955 S.W.2d 693, 696–97 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)).
2 We note that appellant wrote a letter dated May 29, 2015, but it does not raise any issues pertinent
to this appeal.
3
n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State, 903 S.W.2d 776, 779–80 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no pet.)
(“If an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the
appellant. To withdraw from representation, the appointed attorney must file a motion to
withdraw accompanied by a brief showing the appellate court that the appeal is frivolous.”)
(citations omitted)). We grant the motion to withdraw.
We order counsel to send a copy of the opinion and judgment to appellant and to
advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review, within five days of the date
of this opinion.3 See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 412
n.35; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
DORI C. GARZA,
Justice
Do Not Publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
31st day of August, 2015.
3 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review 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 that was overruled by
this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a), and must comply with the requirements of
Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4.
4
Deborah Alford v. State
Combined Opinion