Arkeshia Rene Scott v. State ( 2018 )

NO. 12-18-00130-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
ARKESHIA RENE SCOTT, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Arkeshia Rene Scott appeals her conviction for engaging in organized criminal activity.
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct.
1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by information with the offense of engaging in organized criminal
activity based on an underlying offense of forgery in which she, with the intent to defraud or harm
another, altered, made, completed, executed, and authenticated a writing, i.e., a check, so that it
purported to be the act of another, who did not authorize the act, a third degree felony.1 Appellant
pleaded “guilty” to the offense charged in the information. Appellant and her counsel signed
various documents in connection with her guilty plea, including an agreed punishment
recommendation and a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore, and judicially confessed,
that the facts alleged in the information were true and correct, and constituted the evidence in the
case. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found the evidence sufficient to substantiate
1
See TEX. CRIM. CODE PROC. ANN. §§ 32.21(a)(1)(A), (2), (b), (d), 71.02(a)(1), (b) (West Supp. 2018).
Appellant’s guilty plea, deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and
ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years.
Later, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Appellant violated the terms
of her community supervision. At the hearing, Appellant pleaded “true” to seven of the ten
allegations in the State’s motion. After a hearing, the trial court found all of the allegations to be
“true,” granted the State’s motion, adjudged Appellant guilty of engaging in organized criminal
activity, and assessed her punishment at five years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he
diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible
error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of
counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case,
and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 2 We reviewed the
record for reversible error and found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).
CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having
done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy
of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise her of her right to file a petition for
2
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file her own brief. The time for filing such brief has expired
and no pro se brief has been filed.
2
discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 22 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should
Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she
must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se
petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for
discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the day
the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements
of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered December 21, 2018.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
3
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
DECEMBER 21, 2018
NO. 12-18-00130-CR
ARKESHIA RENE SCOTT,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 7th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0084-15)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.