Tammy Jo Woodard v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 8th District Court of Hopkins County

NO. 12-05-00092-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TAMMY JO WOODARD, APPEAL FROM THE EIGHTH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE HOPKINS COUNTY, TEXAS

 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Tammy Jo Woodard appeals from the revocation of her probation. Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

Background

On November 19, 2004, Appellant waived her right to a jury trial, stipulated to the evidence, and pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced her to two years of confinement in a state jail facility, probated for three years, and ordered her to pay a $2,000.00 fine and $140.00 in restitution. On December 13, 2004, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant s probation. Appellant pleaded true to possessing methamphetamine in violation of the terms of her probation. The trial court revoked her probation and sentenced her to two years of confinement in a state jail facility. The court also carried forward the order to pay a $2,000.00 fine and $140.00 in restitution.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered April 12, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief and that Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.