Robin Leann Powell v. State ( 2020 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-19-00332-CR
ROBIN LEANN POWELL, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 242nd District Court
Hale County, Texas
Trial Court No. B20247-1606, Honorable Kregg Hukill, Presiding
March 19, 2020
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Robin Leann Powell, appellant, appeals the order revoking her probation. After a
guilty plea for forgery of a financial instrument, appellant was placed on four years’
probation. Subsequently, the State filed a Motion to Revoke and a hearing was held on
same. After appellant pled true to the State’s allegations and testimony was presented
in support of the allegations, the trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked
appellant’s probation and sentenced her to ten months in a State Jail facility. Appellant
filed an appeal.
Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw together with an Anders1 brief.
Through those documents, he certifies to the Court that, after diligently searching the
record, the appeal is without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a
letter sent by counsel to appellant informing the latter of counsel’s belief that there is no
reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se, to counsel’s Anders
brief. So too did counsel provide appellant with a copy of the clerk’s and reporter’s
records, according to the letter. By letter dated February 11, 2020, this Court notified
appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by March 12, 2020, if she wished
to do so. To date, no response has been received.
In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel
discussed potential areas for appeal. However, he then explained why the issues lacked
merit.
We conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s
conclusions and to uncover arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403
(Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)
(en banc). No issues of arguable merit were uncovered, however.
Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgment is affirmed.2
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).
2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals.
2