Fanny Manrique Stuart v. The State of Texas Appeal from 399th Judicial District Court of Bexar County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION Nos. 04-16-00703-CR & 04-16-00704-CR Fanny Manrique STUART, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 2015CR3449 & 2016CR5416 Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 13, 2017 AFFIRMED Fanny Manrique Stuart pled no contest to fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of less than five items and fraudulent use or possession of identifying information of more than ten but less than fifty items. The plea was an open plea. The trial court found Stuart guilty and sentenced her to two years’ state jail and eight years’ imprisonment, respectively. Stuart’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel concludes that the appeal has no merit. Counsel provided Stuart with a copy of the brief and informed her of her 04-16-00703-CR & 04-16-00704-CR right to review the record and file her own brief. See Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Stuart did not file a pro se brief. After reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we agree the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Appellate counsel’s request to withdraw is granted. Nichols, 954 S.W.2d at 86; Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Stuart wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Stuart must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or Stuart must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the later of: (1) the date of this opinion; or (2) the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice DO NOT PUBLISH -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.
