La'Tease Shavon Ross v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (per curiam)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 12-11-00196-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS LA TEASE SHAVON ROSS, APPELLANT § APPEALS FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM La Tease Shavon Ross appeals her conviction for theft. Appellant s counsel has filed a brief asserting 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 A Smith County grand jury indicted Appellant for the felony offense of theft, a state jail felony. 1 The indictment also alleged that Appellant had two previous convictions for state jail felony offenses, enhancing the range of punishment to that of a third degree felony. 2 Appellant pleaded guilty without a plea agreement in May 2011. 3 The trial court assessed a sentence of imprisonment for ten years, suspended that sentence, and placed Appellant on community supervision for a period of seven years. The next week, the State filed to revoke Appellant s 1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 31.03(e)(4)(D) (West Supp. 2012). 2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.425(a) (West Supp. 2012). 3 Appellant pleaded not true to one of the enhancement paragraphs, but stipulated to it in written documents filed with the case. The State offered evidence to show that Appellant had previously been convicted as alleged in the indictment. At the sentencing hearing, Appellant changed her plea to true to both enhancement allegations. suspended sentence, alleging that she had violated the terms of her community supervision agreement. The State filed an amended petition in June 2011, and Appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the State s petition, including that she had used and possessed cocaine and marijuana. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court assessed a sentence of imprisonment for five years. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. 4 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have considered counsel s brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). CONCLUSION As required, Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we affirm the trial court s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2. Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise her of her right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se petition for 4 Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and of the record. 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. 2 discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 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(a). 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; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered July 31, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 3 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JULY 31, 2012 NO. 12-11-00196-CR LA TEASE SHAVON ROSS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0156-11) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant=s counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. 4

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.