# Vaniecia Lashella Chargois v. State > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · January 24, 2013 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3119746 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** January 24, 2013 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3119746 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous ## Opinion text Opinion issued January 24, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00449-CR ____________ VANIECIA LASHELLA CHARGOIS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10-09183 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Vaniecia Lashella Chargois, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated assault, with an agreed recommendation from the State that adjudication be deferred, that appellant be placed on community supervision for 5 years, and that appellant pay a $500 fine. The trial court followed the recommendation, deferred adjudication, placed appellant on community supervision for 5 years, and ordered that appellant pay a $500 fine. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate. Appellant pleaded “true” to three of the State’s allegations, and the trial court found the allegations true, found appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at 20 years’ confinement. The trial court’s certified that appellant has the right to appeal. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, along with an Anders brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and that therefore the appeal is without merit and is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and supplying us with references to the record and legal authority. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and that he is unable to advance any grounds of error that warrant reversal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Mitchell v. State, 193 S.W.3d 153, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). Counsel has informed us that he has delivered a copy of the brief to appellant and informed her of her right to examine the appellate record and to file a response. 2 See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 408 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Appellant has not filed a pro se response. We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, that there are no arguable grounds for review, and that therefore the appeal is frivolous. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400 (emphasizing that reviewing court—and not counsel— determines, after full examination of proceedings, whether appeal is wholly frivolous); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (reviewing court must determine whether arguable grounds for review exist); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (same); Mitchell, 193 S.W.3d at 155 (reviewing court determines whether arguable grounds exist by reviewing entire record). An appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Bledsoe, 178 S.W.3d at 827 & n.6. We affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.1 Attorney David Barlow must immediately send the notice required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5(c) and file a copy of that notice with the 1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that she may, on her own, pursue discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Ex Parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). 3 Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). Any other pending motions are dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 4 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3119746. Public record. Not legal advice.