Tawona Sharmin Riles v. The State of TexasAppeal from 108th District Court of Potter County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________ No. 07-12-0387-CR ________________________ Tawona Sharmin Riles, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 63,828-E, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding April 24, 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Tawona Sharmin Riles, appeals her conviction for delivery of a controlled substance within a drug free zone. She pled guilty without the benefit of a plea bargain, and the trial court assessed punishment at four years in prison.1 1 The trial court assessed punishment after a hearing was held on this cause and in cause number 59,309-E wherein appellant was adjudicated guilty after she was found to have violated conditions of her probation. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders2 brief, wherein he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated March 19, 2013, this court notified appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by April 18, 2013, if she wished to do so. To date, a response has not been filed. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed four potential areas for appeal which included 1) the indictment, 2) the voluntariness of her guilty plea, 3) the sentence and, 4) ineffective assistance of counsel. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issues were without merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with counsel s conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct.1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
