Lisa Nichole Oppenhammer v. The State of Texas Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4 of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed November 4, 2020 S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-19-00657-CR LISA NICHOLE OPPENHAMMER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-1900140-K MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Whitehill, Pedersen, III, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Whitehill Appellant pled guilty and was subsequently convicted of manslaughter. Following appellant’s plea of true to enhancements, the court sentenced her to twenty years imprisonment. Appellant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. Upon initial review of counsel’s brief and motion, we noted that certain exhibits were not included in the record and ordered that the record be supplemented. The court reporter complied, and counsel filed a supplemental brief stating that after reviewing the supplemental record with the exhibits, counsel is still of the opinion that the appeal is frivolous and there are no arguable issues to present. (Counsel’s brief and supplemental brief are referred to as the brief). Counsel has provided appellant with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The brief presents a professional evaluation of the record showing why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to advance. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978) (determining whether brief meets requirements of Anders). We advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting appellant has right to file pro se response to Anders brief filed by counsel). Appellant responded but, after reviewing that brief and the record, we conclude that her pro se brief presents no arguable grounds to advance. We have also reviewed the record and counsel’s brief. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (explaining appellate court’s duty in Anders cases). We agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit.1 We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. 1 Counsel’s brief states that “since the sentence assessed . . . was within the range provided by law, the sentence is not subject to appeal.” While we do not agree with this statement, we agree that there is no basis to challenge the sentence on this record. –2– We therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. /Bill Whitehill/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 190657F.U05 –3– S Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F19-00140-K. Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Pedersen, III and Reichek participating. LISA NICHOLE OPPENHAMMER, Appellant No. 05-19-00657-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED and counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Judgment entered November 4, 2020 –4–
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.
