In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-23-00196-CR

SHANNON DEE HARGUES, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 84th District Court Ochiltree County, Texas Trial Court No. 5351, Honorable Curtis Brancheau, Presiding April 12, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Shannon Dee Hargues appeals from the trial court’s order revoking her deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicating her guilty of the third-degree felony offense of tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, and imposing sentence of nine years imprisonment. Counsel initially appointed on appeal filed a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders 1 brief. This court evaluated counsel’s motion and brief and

Thereafter, newly appointed counsel also filed an Ander’s brief and motion to withdraw, representing that he found no non-frivolous issues warranting an appeal. In support of his motion, counsel certified that he conducted a conscientious examination of the record, and, in his opinion, the record reflected no non-frivolous error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with Schulman, counsel discussed why, under the controlling authorities, the record presents no reversible error. So too did he address the earlier issue resulting in remand and appointment of new counsel. The capias establishing an element to the trial court’s jurisdiction was included in a supplemental record.

Counsel further notified appellant of his motion to withdraw. So too did he provide her with a copy of the motion and the Anders brief and inform her of her right to file a pro se response. 2 See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). Appellant filed a pro se response.

We independently examined the record, including counsel’s brief and the pro se response, to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues upon which the appeal

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is only informational and ministerial. It does not encompass or require the rendition of legal advice or further representation.