




NO








NO. 12-09-00155-CR
 
                         IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS
 
            TWELFTH
COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
                                      TYLER, TEXAS
 
LATRICIA MONTE BALLARD,
APPELLANT                                                     '     APPEAL
FROM THE 217TH
 
V.                                                                         '     JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 '     ANGELINA
COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLEE
 


MEMORANDUM
OPINION
PER
CURIAM
Latricia Monte Ballard appeals
her conviction for burglary of a habitation.  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 dismiss the appeal.  
 
Background
Appellant was charged by
indictment with the felony offense of burglary of a habitation.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1)
(Vernon 2003).  She pleaded not guilty, and a jury trial was held.  The jury
found her guilty as charged.  The trial court sentenced Appellant to
imprisonment for five years but suspended that sentence and placed her on
community supervision with various conditions.  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.  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 likewise reviewed the record for
reversible error and have found none.
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 dismiss
this appeal.  See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408B09 (“After the completion
of these four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is
wholly frivolous, grant the attorney=s
motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may
be plausible grounds for appeal.”).
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 him of his 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, he must either retain an attorney to
file a petition for discretionary review or he 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 this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3.  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 May 5, 2010.
Panel consisted of
Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH) 
 

