                                  NO. 12-18-00296-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

 PAKISHA DAVETTE BRADLEY,                         §       APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
 APPELLANT

 V.                                               §       JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

 THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 APPELLEE                                         §       SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Pakisha Davette Bradley appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking her community
supervision. 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
       Appellant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated with a child passenger.
Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, she pleaded “guilty,” and the trial court assessed her
sentence at imprisonment for two years, suspended for a term of five years. Subsequently, the State
filed a motion to revoke community supervision alleging that Appellant drove a vehicle while her
driver’s license was suspended. Appellant stipulated to evidence of the allegation and pleaded
“true.” After a hearing, at which there was no testimony as to the allegation in the State’s motion,
the trial court found the allegation true and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for
eighteen months. This appeal followed.
                             ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he has reviewed the record and found no reversible error or
jurisdictional defects. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating
why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 1
         We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the
record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error.


                                                   CONCLUSION
         As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991),
Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403,
407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the
merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
         Appellant’s 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 review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on her behalf or she 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 that the last timely motion for rehearing was
overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must
be filed with 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 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified
Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of her right to file a pro se response, and took
concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014). Appellant was given time to file her own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief
has been filed.




                                                          2
Opinion delivered September 4, 2019.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.




                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)


                                                          3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                         SEPTEMBER 4, 2019


                                         NO. 12-18-00296-CR


                                PAKISHA DAVETTE BRADLEY,
                                         Appellant
                                            V.
                                   THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                         Appellee


                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0637-18)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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 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., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
