Ruth Lenore Rhodes v. State of Texas ( 2008 )

Opinion filed April 24, 2008

Opinion filed April 24, 2008

                                                                        In The

    Eleventh Court of Appeals

                                                                 ____________

                                                          No. 11-07-00364-CR

                                                    __________

                                 RUTH LENORE RHODES, Appellant

                                                             V.

                                         STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                                         On Appeal from the 244th District Court

                                                           Ector County, Texas

                                                 Trial Court Cause No. C-33,246

                                             M E M O R A N D U M  O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted Ruth Lenore Rhodes, upon her plea of guilty, of the offense of possession of less than one gram of cocaine.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed her punishment at confinement for one year in a state jail facility.  We affirm.

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 states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous.  Counsel presents one arguable issue.

Counsel contends that the trial court erred by depriving appellant of a competency hearing that was Auncluttered@ by evidence of the underlying offense.  The record does not support this contention.  The record reflects that appellant failed to appear in person for a pretrial hearing and that her bond was then forfeited.  At the hearing on her guilty plea, appellant appeared in person and informed the trial court that she was currently taking Prozac.  Appellant further informed the trial court that, while she was on Prozac, she understood what was happening, that she was Aall right,@ and that her ability to understand had not been affected.  The record affirmatively reflects that appellant understood what was happening.  Nothing in the record supports the contention that a competency hearing would have been appropriate.  The potential issue is overruled.

Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of her right to review the record and file a response to counsel=s brief.  A response has not been filed.  Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 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.CEastland 2005, no pet.).

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit. We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant within five days from the date of this opinion that appellant may file a petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.  Tex. R. App. P. 48.4; Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  Likewise, this court advises appellant that she may file a  petition for discretionary review pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 66.  Black v. State, 217 S.W.3d 687 (Tex. App.CEastland 2007, no pet.).

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

April 24, 2008

Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of:  Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.