                                  NO. 12-16-00153-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

DENADRIAN DANYELL WHITAKER,                     §      APPEAL FROM THE 369TH
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
         Denadrian Danyell Whitaker appeals her convictions for endangering a child.
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 two counts of endangering a child. Pursuant
to a plea bargain agreement with the State, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense, and the
trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed her on community supervision for a term of four
years.
         Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. Appellant pleaded “true” to
nine allegations in the motion and “not true” to one allegation. After giving both parties an
opportunity to present evidence and arguments, the trial court granted the motion, revoked
Appellant’s community supervision, and assessed her punishment at imprisonment for two years.
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 error to present
for our review. 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 these cases 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 the date of this court’s judgment or the date 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 August 9, 2017.
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

                                            AUGUST 9, 2017


                                         NO. 12-16-00153-CR


                            DENADRIAN DANYELL WHITAKER,
                                       Appellant
                                          V.
                                THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                       Appellee


                                Appeal from the 369th District Court
                           of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 19123)

                        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.
