Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016

Alicia Nichole Perez v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas · Decided January 21, 2016

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00232-CR Alicia Nichole Perez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY, 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR2012-603, HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Alicia Nichole Perez was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance under four grams, a third-degree felony, and sentenced to four years in prison. See Tex. Health & Safety Code § 481.115(c); Tex. Penal Code § 12.34.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has represented to the Court that she provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant; advised appellant of her right to examine the appellate record, file a pro se brief, and pursue discretionary review following the resolution of the appeal in this Court; and provided appellant with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record along with the mailing address of this Court. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has not requested and received the appellate record, nor has a pro se brief been filed.

We have independently reviewed the record and have found nothing that might arguably support the appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of conviction.1

__________________________________________ David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field Affirmed Filed: January 21, 2016 Do Not Publish

1 No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of her case 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. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (governing proceedings in Court of Criminal Appeals). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that this Court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing filed. See id. R. 68.2. The petition must be filed with the clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(a). If the petition is mistakenly filed with this Court, it will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. R. 68.3(b). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the rules of appellate procedure. See id. R. 68.4. Once this Court receives notice that a petition has been filed, the filings in this case cause will be forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See id. R. 68.7.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.