Sonye Shields v. The State of Texas Appeal from 100th District Court of Donley County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-15-00344-CR SONYE SHIELDS, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Donley County, Texas Trial Court No. 3852, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding June 23, 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Sonye Shields, entered a negotiated plea of guilty to the offense of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams.1 Pursuant to the plea agreement, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five years and ordered to pay a fine of $3000 plus all costs of court. Subsequently, the State filed an original and first amended application to adjudicate appellant guilty. Appellant entered a plea of “Not 1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(d) (West 2010). True” to the allegations contained in the first amended application to adjudicate. After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that two allegations were true and adjudicated appellant guilty. Following a hearing on the issue of punishment, the trial court assessed appellant’s punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for 20 years. Appellant has perfected her appeal and we will affirm. Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response. Additionally, appellant’s counsel has certified that he has provided appellant with a copy of the record to use in preparation of a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has filed no response. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any 2 arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous.2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 3
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.
