# Caitlin Colleen Hale v. State > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · April 5, 2016 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3193157 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** April 5, 2016 - **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/3193157 ## 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 April 5, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-15-00611-CR ——————————— CAITLIN COLLEEN HALE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 176th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1397451 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Caitlin Colleen Hale, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of aggravated assault. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (West 2011). In accordance with appellant’s plea-bargain agreement with the State, the trial court found sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty, but deferred making any finding regarding appellant’s guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of three years. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 § 5(a) (West Supp. 2014). The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s guilt, alleging various violations of the terms of appellant’s community supervision. See id. §§ 5(b), 21(e). Appellant pleaded true to a number of the alleged violations of the terms of her community supervision. The trial court found multiple allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and sentenced appellant to seven years’ imprisonment. See id. §§ 5(b), 21(b), 23. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appellant’s appointed counsel on appeal has filed a motion to withdraw, along with a brief stating that the record presents no reversible error and 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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel indicates that he has thoroughly reviewed the record and 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.). We have independently reviewed the entire record in this appeal, and we conclude that no reversible error exists in the record, there are no arguable grounds 2 for review, and 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). We note that an appellant may challenge a holding that there are no arguable grounds for appeal by filing a petition for discretionary review in the Texas 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 Kyle B. Johnson must immediately send appellant the required notice and file a copy of the notice with the Clerk of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(c). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Bland, Brown, and Lloyd. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 1 Appointed counsel still has a duty to inform appellant of the result of this appeal and that he may, on his 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3193157. Public record. Not legal advice.