Temika Charnette Owens v. The State of Texas Appeal from 4th District Court of Rusk County (memorandum opinion by chief justice iii morriss)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-15-00069-CR TEMIKA CHARNETTE OWENS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 4th District Court Rusk County, Texas Trial Court No. CR14-305 Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss MEMORANDUM OPINION Temika Charnette Owens appeals her conviction for the third degree felony harassing a public servant.1 Owens’ appellate counsel has filed a brief which discusses the record and reviews the proceedings in detail. After counsel’s professional evaluation of the record, he has concluded there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the requirements of the law. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). After conducting our own review of the record, we find there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment and sentence. Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Owens on or about August 17, 2015, informing Owens of her right to file a pro se response, her right to review the record of the trial proceedings in doing so, and her right to petition the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals should this Court affirm the trial court’s judgment.2 Counsel states in his letter to Owens that he sent her a copy of the trial record.3 Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this appeal. To date, we have heard nothing from Owens suggesting she wishes to file a pro se appellate brief. 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.11(a)(2) (West Supp. 2015). In appellate counsel’s letter to Owens, however, after advising Owens of her rights to file her own brief and to seek discretionary review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, counsel also told Owens that counsel’s services to her had concluded. Although we will, with our opinion today, grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, we point out that his appellate representation does not conclude until said motion is granted. See Brown v. State, 182 S.W.3d 427, 429 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.). 2 Counsel has therefore complied with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ requirements listed. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–21 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 3 2 We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolous. We have independently reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record and find no genuinely arguable issue. See Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We, therefore, agree with counsel’s assessment that no arguable issues support an appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.4 Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: January 29, 2016 February 10, 2016 Do Not Publish 4 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders, grant counsel’s request to withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of 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. 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.
