Samantha Lee v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 119th District Court of Tom Green County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-12-0209-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL B SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 ______________________________ SAMANTHA LEE AKA SAMANTHA DEANN LEE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 119TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY; NO. B-08-0708-SB; HON. BEN WOODWARD, PRESIDING _______________________________ Memorandum Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMBPELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Samantha Lee aka Samantha DeAnn Lee (appellant) appeals her conviction for possession with intent to deliver. Appellant plead guilty and in exchange for her guilty plea was placed on ten years deferred adjudication community supervision. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt to which appellant plead true without the benefit of a plea agreement. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty and sentenced her to thirty-seven years in prison. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders 1 brief, wherein she certified that, after diligently searching the record, she concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with her brief, appellate counsel filed a copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant s right to file a response pro se. By letter dated July 27, 2012, this court notified appellant of her right to file her own brief or response by August 27, 2012, if she wished to do so. Appellant filed a request for new counsel to be appointed. 2 In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed two potential areas for appeal which included ineffective assistance of counsel and sufficiency of the evidence. However, counsel then proceeded to explain why the issues were without merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of appellate counsel s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). After doing so, we concur with counsel s conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant counsel s motion to withdraw. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct.1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). 2 We deny appellant s request for appointment of new counsel. 2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.
