Rachel Irene Griffin v. The State of TexasAppeal from 110th District Court of Floyd County (memorandum opinion )
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-13-00260-CR RACHEL IRENE GRIFFIN, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 110th District Court Floyd County, Texas Trial Court No. 4478, Honorable William P. Smith, Presiding May 6, 2014 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant, Rachel Irene Griffin, was charged with driving while intoxicated third or more offense.1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge and was sentenced to confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (ID-TDCJ) for five years. The sentence of confinement was suspended and appellant was placed on community supervision for a term of five years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke her probation. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ยงยง 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2013). Appellant entered a plea of not true to the allegations contained within the motion to revoke her probation. After hearing the evidence at a hearing on the motion to revoke probation, the trial court revoked appellant s probation and sentenced her to confinement for five years in the ID-TDCJ. Appellant appealed and we will affirm. Appellant s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. Id. at 744-45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, there is no error in the trial court s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw and appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also advised appellant of her right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a response. By his Anders brief, counsel raises grounds that could possibly support an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 2 Accordingly, counsel s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.2 Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not publish. 2 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. 3
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.
