Valentria Franchon Flakes v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-11-00207-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS VALENTRIA FRANCHON FLAKES, APPELLANT § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Valentria Franchon Flakes 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 In 2009, Appellant was indicted for theft, which was a state jail felony as alleged due to Appellant s two prior theft convictions. She entered a negotiated plea of guilty. After admonishing Appellant of her rights, the trial court accepted her guilty plea and found the enhancements to be true. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Appellant to two years of confinement in a state jail facility, but suspended her sentence and placed her on community supervision for a period of four years. In 2010, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant s community supervision, alleging that she violated the terms of her community supervision in several respects. The trial court denied the motion, but amended the terms of Appellant s community supervision to require, among other things, her participation in an alternative incarceration center program. In 2011, the State filed another motion to revoke Appellant s community supervision, alleging ten violations of the terms of her community supervision. The State later abandoned two of the allegations, namely that she moved without notifying her supervision officer and failed to maintain employment. Appellant pleaded true to the remaining allegations at the revocation hearing. The trial court found the allegations to be true, revoked Appellant s community supervision, and sentenced her to fifteen months of confinement in a state jail facility. 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. 1 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 have 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 judgment of the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). 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 1 Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant that she had the right to file her own brief. Appellant was given time to file her own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. 2 retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se petition for 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 from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that 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(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 September 19, 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 SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 NO. 12-11-00207-CR VALENTRIA FRANCHON FLAKES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1017-09) 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.