Meshell Lynn Fox v. State, No. 07-13-00097-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 30, 2013). · Go Syfert
Meshell Lynn Fox v. State, No. 07-13-00097-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 30, 2013). Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Meshell Lynn Fox
v.
State
07-13-00097-CR.
Court of Appeals of Texas.
Aug 30, 2013.
Unpublished opinion
Published
Citation check: this opinion cites a case at a citation that does not lead to it (marked in red below).
In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00097-CR

MESHELL LYNN FOX, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 64th District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. A19266-1211, Honorable Robert W. Kinkaid Jr., Presiding

August 30, 2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Appellant, Meshell Lynn Fox, was convicted of theft of property in an amount of less than $50 with two prior theft convictions alleged which elevated the theft case to a

State Jail Felony offense.[1] The same jury assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in a state jail for a term of 540 days. Appellant appealed, and we will affirm.

Accordingly, counsel=s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court=s judgment is affirmed. [2]

Mackey K. Hancock

Justice

Do not publish.


1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2012). Appellant=s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498[incorrect citation] (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court=s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.
2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.