Jayda Lane Covington v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 242nd District Court of Hale County (Majority)

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 07-12-00335-CR

Case Date: 11/20/2012

Plaintiff: Jayda Lane Covington

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 242nd District Court of Hale County (Majority)

Preview:NO. 07-12-0335-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL C NOVEMBER 20, 2012 _____________________________ JAYDA LANE COVINGTON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _____________________________ FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY; NO. B18835-1106; HONORABLE EDWARD LEE SELF, PRESIDING _____________________________ Memorandum Opinion _____________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant Jayda Lane Covington was convicted of forgery of a financial instrument after pleading guilty, and she was sentenced by a jury to two years confinement and a fine of $2,500. She has appealed. However, her appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw, together with an Anders1 brief. In the latter, he certified that, after diligently searching the record, he has concluded that the appeal was without merit. Along with his brief, counsel attached a
1

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

copy of a letter sent to appellant informing her of counsel's belief that there was no reversible error and of appellant's right to file a response or brief pro se. By letter dated October 11, 2012, this court also notified appellant of her right to tender her own brief or response and set November 12, 2012, as the deadline to do so. To date, neither a brief nor a motion to extend the time to file a brief has been received. In compliance with the principles enunciated in Anders, counsel stated that he has reviewed the facts and law including his client's plea of guilty outside the presence of the jury, the court's admonitions to his client regarding the plea, the voir dire examination, the full trial of this matter, the court's charge and argument of counsel, her stipulation of guilt, and the punishment ultimately levied. We also reviewed the record, sua sponte, to uncover any arguable error pursuant to the duty imposed by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Our review has also failed to disclose potential or arguable error. Accordingly, the motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.

2

Download 07-12-00335-cr.pdf