Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2007

Margaret Christine Fanali v. State

Margaret Christine Fanali v. State
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided June 6, 2007

Margaret Christine Fanali v. State

Opinion

In The



Court of Appeals



Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont



____________________



NO. 09-06-440 CR

____________________



MARGARET CHRISTINE FANALI, Appellant



V.



THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee




On Appeal from the 359th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 06-04-03205-CR




MEMORANDUM OPINION

Margaret Christine Fanali entered a non-negotiated guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, in an amount of one gram or more but less than four grams, and pled true to the repeat offender enhancement allegations that were included in the indictment. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 12.42(a)(3) (Vernon Supp. 2006). The trial court convicted Fanali and imposed a sentence of seven years of confinement in Texas Department of Criminal Justice --Correctional Institutions Division.

On appeal, Fanali's counsel filed a brief that presents counsel's professional evaluation of the record and concludes the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On March 1, 2007, we granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se brief. We received no response from appellant.

We reviewed the appellate record, and we agree with counsel's conclusion that no arguable issues support an appeal. Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief the appeal. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court's judgment. (1)



__________________________________

CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on May 29, 2007

Opinion Delivered June 6, 2007

Do not publish



Before Gaultney, Kreger and Horton, JJ.

1. Appellant may challenge our decision in this case by filing a petition for discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.