Opinion filed October 13, 2016




                                       In The


        Eleventh Court of Appeals
                                    ____________

                                 No. 11-16-00041-CR
                                    ____________

                 ASHLLE MARIE SANCHEZ, Appellant
                                          V.
                     THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


                    On Appeal from the 132nd District Court
                            Scurry County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. 10264


                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
      The jury convicted Ashlle Marie Sanchez of the offense of delivery of less
than one gram of methamphetamine.           The jury assessed her punishment at
confinement in a state jail facility for eighteen months, and the trial court sentenced
her accordingly. We dismiss the appeal.
      Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The
motion is supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously
examines the record and applicable law and states that she has concluded that the
appeal is frivolous. Counsel has provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, a copy
of the motion to withdraw, and a motion for pro se access to the appellate record.
Counsel also advised Appellant of her right to review the record and file a response
to counsel’s brief. Upon Appellant’s filing of the motion for pro se access to the
appellate record, the clerk of this court sent the record to Appellant on May 27, 2016.
However, despite being granted extensions of time in which to file her response,
Appellant has not filed a pro se response to counsel’s brief.
      Court-appointed counsel has complied with the requirements of Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App.
2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); 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); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); and Eaden v. State, 161
S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). In addressing an Anders brief and
pro se response, a court of appeals may only determine (1) that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds
no reversible error or (2) that arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause
to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 409; Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005).   Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have
independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. See Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409.
      We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise Appellant that she may
file a petition for discretionary review with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals seeking review by that court. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the
attorney representing the defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the
opinion is handed down, send his client a copy of the opinion and judgment, along
                                          2
with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary
review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises Appellant that she may file a
petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.
      The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.


                                                    PER CURIAM


October 13, 2016
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.




                                          3
