Jamie Lee Hodge v. The State of Texas--Appeal from County Court at Law of Henderson County

NO. 12-05-00325-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAMIE LEE HODGE, APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V. COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Jamie Lee Hodge appeals her conviction for theft. Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged by information with theft of property, the value of which was at least $50.00 or more but less than $500.00. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found Appellant guilty of theft as charged. The trial court sentenced Appellant to three days of confinement in county jail and a $500.00 fine. This appeal followed.

Analysis pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible

error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of Appellant s brief, it is apparent that her counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to raise any meritorious issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered May 24, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and Devasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief and that Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.