Monita Mechelle Smith v. The State of Texas Appeal from 181st District Court of Randall County (memorandum opinion by chief justice quinn)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-14-00385-CR MONITA MECHELLE SMITH, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 181st District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 25,083-B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding February 4, 2015 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Monita Mechelle Smith, appellant, appeals her convictions for burglary of a building and for credit card or debit card abuse as alleged in a two count indictment. Appellant pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement. Testimony was heard by the trial court and punishment was assessed at ten years for each count to run concurrently. Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief, wherein he certifies that, after diligently searching the record, he has 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). concluded that the appeal is without merit. Along with his brief, he has 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 pro se response. So too did he represent that the appellate record was provided to appellant. By letter dated December 12, 2014, this court also notified appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by January 12, 2015, 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 which included the guilty pleas, sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, the punishment assessed, and the effectiveness of counsel. However, he then explained why the issues lacked merit. In addition, 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). After doing so, we concurred with counsel’s conclusions. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted and the judgments are affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. 2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.