Teresa Ragland Bartts v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-06-00115-CR
______________________________
TERESA RAGLAND BARTTS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court
Wood County, Texas
Trial Court No. 15,871-99
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Teresa Ragland Bartts has appealed from the revocation of her deferred adjudication community supervision and adjudication of guilt. On or about June 18, 1999, Bartts entered a plea of guilty and signed a written stipulation of evidence to a count of possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: methamphetamine, in an amount of 400 grams or more with intent to deliver, as well as a count of possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: methamphetamine, in an amount of 400 grams or more with intent to manufacture. The trial court accepted Bartts' pleas and, in accordance with the plea agreements, deferred the adjudication of guilt, placing Bartts on ten years' deferred adjudication community supervision for each count. On March 13, 2006, and May 8, 2006, the trial court granted the State's motion to proceed to final adjudication and found that Bartts violated the terms of her community supervision. The trial court adjudicated Bartts guilty in each cause and assessed Bartts' punishment in each cause at fifteen years' imprisonment, to run concurrently. Two appeals are presently pending before this Court. (1)

Appellate counsel filed a brief in both appeals October 18, 2006, under the mandate of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Ex parte Senna, 606 S.W.2d 329, 330 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), and has accordingly also filed a motion to withdraw. (2)

Counsel sent Bartts a copy of the brief, as well as copies of the clerk's and reporter's records, and advised Bartts by letter he believes there are no arguable contentions of error. He also informed Bartts of her right to review the record and file a pro se brief. Bartts was advised by letter from this Court dated October 24, 2006, that her pro se brief was due on or before November 27, 2006. No brief has been filed, and Bartts has not sought additional time in which to prepare a brief.

Counsel has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced, as required by High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). See also Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

Counsel states in the brief that there is no evidence Bartts' plea was not voluntary, that all admonitions were properly given, and that there is no evidence Bartts did not knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily enter her plea of guilty. Counsel discusses the effect of Bartts signing the written stipulations and waivers contained in the record, the effect of Bartts' guilty plea, and the effect of revocation of deferred adjudication. Counsel also examines the sufficiency of the evidence, the punishment assessed on Bartts' original plea, the punishment assessed on adjudication of guilt, and Bartts' right to appeal. Counsel concluded from his review of the record there is no arguable point of error to support the appeal.

We have, likewise, reviewed the record and agree with counsel that there are no arguable points of error in this case.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

 

Date Submitted: January 24, 2007

Date Decided: January 26, 2007

 

Do Not Publish

1. This appeal concerns the conviction for possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: methamphetamine, in an amount of 400 grams or more with intent to deliver. In Bartts v. State, cause number 06-06-00116-CR, also decided this day, we likewise affirm Bartts' conviction for possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: methamphetamine, in an amount of 400 grams or more with intent to manufacture. In that case, however, we modify Bartts' sentence to give credit for time served before trial.

2. Given that we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel's request to withdraw from further representing the defendant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. If the defendant wishes to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either hire an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.