Alicia Margaret Minter v. The State of Texas Appeal from 100th District Court of Carson County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-17-00361-CR ALICIA MARGARET MINTER, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Carson County, Texas Trial Court No. 5936, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding March 13, 2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE, and PARKER, JJ. Alicia Margaret Minter, appellant, appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating her guilty of burglary of a habitation after finding she had violated her community supervision. Appellant timely appealed and was appointed counsel. Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders1 brief in the cause. Through those documents, counsel certified that, after diligently searching the record, the appeal was without merit. Accompanying the brief and motion is a copy of a letter 1 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744–45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). informing appellant of her counsel’s belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant’s right to file a response, pro se. So too did the letter indicate that a copy of the appellate record was provided to appellant. By letter dated January 29, 2018, this Court also notified appellant of her right to file her own response by February 28, 2018. To date, appellant has not filed a pro se response. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, appellate counsel discussed one potential area for appeal, which included whether the trial court had abused its discretion in finding that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of probation. However, counsel then explained why the issue lacked merit. In addition, we conducted our own review of the record to assess the accuracy of counsel’s conclusions and to uncover any arguable error pursuant to In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc). No such error was uncovered. Furthermore, only one condition of probation need be violated warranting revocation. See Ex parte Lea, 505 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (stating that “a defendant’s community supervision can be revoked based on a sole violation of one condition”). Appellant admitted to having ingested methamphetamine. Such violated a condition of her probation, as alleged by the State. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.2 Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish. 2 Appellant has the right to file a petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.
