Case Information

*1 Opinion filed January 20, 2017

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ____________

No. 11-16-00130-CR

____________ YVONNE CHRISTINA RODRIGUEZ, Appellant

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 91st District Court Eastland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 23977 M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The jury convicted Yvonne Christina Rodriguez of the offense of bail jumping and failure to appear, a third-degree felony. The trial court found an enhancement

allegation to be true and assessed punishment at confinement for fifteen years. We dismiss the appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that the appeal is frivolous. *2 Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief and a copy of the motion to withdraw. Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel’s brief. Counsel provided Appellant with a motion to file in this court for pro se access to the appellate record. Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State , 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.).

Appellant filed in this court a pro se request for the appellate record, and this court directed that it be furnished to her. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se response to counsel’s Anders brief. In addressing an Anders brief and pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409.

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals seeking review by that court. T P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along *3 with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that she may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM January 20, 2017

Do not publish. See T P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and McCall. ^[1]

Bailey, J., not participating.

[1] Terry McCall, Retired Justice, Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, sitting by assignment.