In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00357-CR
SHANITA MARIE FLETCHER, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 372nd District Court
Tarrant County, Texas1
Trial Court No. 1848799, Honorable Julie Lugo, Presiding
August 26, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.
Appellant, Shanita Marie Fletcher, appeals from the trial court’s judgment finding
her guilty of assault on a public servant.2 Her court-appointed counsel has filed a motion
1 This cause was originally filed in the Second Court of Appeals and was transferred to this Court
by a docket-equalization order of the Supreme Court of Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE § 73.001. Where there is a conflict with the precedent of this Court, this appeal has been decided in accordance with the precedent of the Second Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3; Mitschke v. Borromeo, 645 S.W.3d 251, 254 (Tex. 2022).
2 TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.01(a)(3) & (b)(1).
to withdraw supported by a brief filed pursuant to Anders v. California,3 concluding that
no arguable grounds for reversal exist. After conducting an independent review of the
record, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
BACKGROUND
On October 17, 2024, Alexandra Miranda was working as a detention officer in the
Tarrant County Jail and was working in the unit where Appellant was housed. Miranda
gave Appellant a lawful order to close her cell door, which Appellant refused. Miranda
backed away from Appellant and told the other inmates to get in their cells, as she was
about to call a code. Appellant approached her, cursing at her. Miranda ordered
Appellant to stop, warning that she would spray her with O.C. spray if she took one more
step. When Appellant continued to approach, Miranda sprayed her with the spray.
Appellant then began hitting Miranda, who defended herself. Miranda testified that
Appellant struck her with fists and caused her bodily injury, in that she was bleeding from
the assault.
On October 16, 2025, Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charged offense. At trial
Appellant testified in her own defense. Appellant disputed that the argument concerned
closing the cell door, but she agreed with Miranda’s testimony that the argument was over
her cell door. Appellant further testified that she admitted to striking Miranda after being
sprayed with O.C. spray, but that she did not remember who hit whom first.
3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). When appointed
appellate counsel, after a conscientious examination of the record, concludes that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief identifying anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Id.
2
During the bench trial, the court heard and evaluated the evidence presented by
both sides before ultimately finding the defendant guilty. The trial court sentenced
Appellant to two years’ imprisonment. Appellant timely filed a Motion for New Trial/Motion
in Arrest of Judgment on October 22, 2025, which was overruled by operation of law.
Appellant timely filed her Notice of Appeal on October 17, 2025.
ANDERS FRAMEWORK
An Anders brief must present a professional evaluation of the record and explain
why the appeal presents no arguable grounds for reversal. See In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d 403, 406–12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Counsel need not identify specific arguable
points where none exist, but the brief must include record references and pertinent legal
authorities. Id.; Davis v. State, 683 S.W.3d 828, 829–30 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2023, no
pet.). Counsel must also serve the client with a copy of the brief and the motion to
withdraw and inform the client of the right to file a pro se response and a pro se petition
for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408; see also Kelly v. State,
436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s
obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). This Court,
in turn, must independently examine the entire record to determine whether any
nonfrivolous issue exists. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d
300 (1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (en banc).
Appellate counsel’s brief meets the necessary requirements. In support of his
motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a conscientious examination of
the record, and in his opinion, the record reflects no grounds that could be argued non3
frivolously on appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel candidly discusses why, under the controlling authorities,
the record presents no reversible error and no arguable grounds for relief. Counsel has
also demonstrated he has complied with the requirements by (1) providing copies of the
brief and the appellate record to Appellant, (2) notifying her of the right to file a pro se
response if she desired to do so, and (3) informing her of the right to file a pro se petition
for discretionary review.
By letter dated May 15, 2026, this Court granted Appellant an opportunity to
exercise her right to file a response to counsel’s motion. As this original letter was
returned to the Court undelivered, another letter was sent on July 15, 2026, with a
deadline for response being August 14, 2026. Appellate counsel filed an extension
request on behalf of Appellant requesting seven additional days to submit her response.
Appellant was granted an extension until August 21, 2026, to file her response. To date,
Appellant has neither filed a response nor otherwise contacted the Court. The State has
not favored us with a brief.
ANALYSIS
By his Anders brief, counsel evaluated jurisdiction, the sufficiency of the evidence,
all phases of the proceedings, all adverse rulings, including Appellant’s evidentiary
objections, and sentencing. He candidly discussed potential issues and conceded no
errors occurred during trial which would require reversal of Appellant’s conviction and
sentence. Thus, he concluded there are no non-frivolous issues to present on appeal,
and the appeal is without merit and wholly frivolous.
4
We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s Anders brief. Our
independent review confirms appellate counsel’s assessment that the appeal is wholly
frivolous and without merit. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). So, after thoroughly reviewing the record and counsel’s brief, we (1) agree that
there is no plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction, (2) affirm the trial court’s
judgment, and (3) grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.4
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.
Laura A. W. Pratt
Justice
Do not publish.
4 Within five days after the date of this opinion, appellate counsel shall (1) send Appellant a copy
of the opinion and judgment and (2) inform Appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is informational and ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.
5