eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2010-11

Vanessa Latrice Morris v. State ( 2010 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-10-00008-CR
VANESSA LATRICE MORRIS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 54th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2004-1252-C2
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Vanessa Latrice Morris pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to
possession of a controlled substance, cocaine. TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §
481.115 (Vernon 2010). The trial court convicted Morris and assessed her punishment at
18 months in a state jail facility and a $750 fine. The trial court suspended imposition of
the sentence and placed Morris on community supervision for 3 years. The State
subsequently filed a motion to revoke Morris’s community supervision.              Morris
pleaded true to nine of the eleven allegations in the State’s motion to revoke. The trial
court revoked Morris’s community supervision and sentenced her to 18 months
confinement. We affirm.
Morris’s appellate attorney filed an Anders brief. See Anders v. California,
    386 U.S. 738 
    (1967). Counsel informed Morris of her right to submit a brief on her own behalf.
Morris did not file a brief, and the State did not file a response.
Counsel’s brief suggests as potential issues (1) abuse of discretion, (2) length of
sentence, and (3) voluntariness of the plea. Counsel reviews the potential issues and
concludes that the appeal is frivolous.         Counsel's brief evidences a professional
evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties
required of appointed counsel. See Anders v.
    California, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; High v. State,
    573 S.W.2d 807
    , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman,
    252 S.W.3d 403
    , 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008).
In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the
proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v.
    California, 386 U.S. at 744
    ; accord Stafford v. State,
    813 S.W.2d 503
    , 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An
appeal is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact."
McCoy v. Court of Appeals,
    486 U.S. 429
    , 439 n. 10 (1988). Arguments are frivolous when
they "cannot conceivably persuade the court."
    Id. at 436. 
    An appeal is not wholly
frivolous when it is based on "arguable grounds." Stafford v.
    State, 813 S.W.2d at 511
    .
After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we determine the appeal to be
wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State,
    178 S.W.3d 824
    , 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Morris v. State                                                                        Page 2
Should Morris wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, Morris must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
discretionary review or Morris must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either
this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this
Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along
with the rest of the filings in this case. 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. See also In re
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 
    n.22.
Counsel's request that he be allowed to withdraw from representation of Morris
is granted. Additionally, counsel must send Morris a copy of our decision, notify
Morris of her right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court
a letter certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4.
TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; see also In re
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 
    n.22.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Morris v. State                                                                      Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Judge Scoggins1
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 24, 2010
Do not publish
[CR25]
1
The Honorable Al Scoggins, Judge of the 378 th District Court of Ellis County, sitting by assignment of
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to section 74.003(h) of the Government Code.
See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 74.003(h) (Vernon 2005).
Morris v. State                                                                                   Page 4