Saniya Joelle Levine v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-24-00055-CR

Saniya Joelle Levine,
Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,
Appellee

On appeal from the
52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas
Judge Trent D. Farrell, presiding
Trial Court Cause No. 21-26932

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court found Saniya Joelle Levine violated one condition

of her deferred adjudication community supervision on the felony offense of

injury to a child or elderly. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.04. As a result,

the trial court found Levine guilty and assessed Levine’s punishment at 4

years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional
Division. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34. This appeal ensued. We

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Levine’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief in support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the

appellate record and that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s

brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record for error and

compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude that

counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See id. at

744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812–13 (Tex. Crim. App.

[Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407–09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, “after a full examination of all

the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386

U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct.

346, 349–50, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d

503, 509–11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or

“without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of

Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988). After a review of the entire record in this appeal, we have determined

Levine v. The State of Texas Page 2
the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–

28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Levine is granted.

MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: February 27, 2025

Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do Not Publish
CR25

Levine v. The State of Texas Page 3