Shana Layne Miller v. State

NO. 07-07-0470-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL A JANUARY 17, 2008 ______________________________ SHANA LAYNE MILLER, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE _________________________________ FROM THE 108TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; NO. 51,764-E; HONORABLE ABE LOPEZ, JUDGE _______________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. ON MOTION TO DISMISS Pending before this Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss her appeal. Appellant and her attorney both have signed the motion. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this Court having been delivered to date, we grant the motion. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. James T. Campbell Justice Do not publish. failed to adequately prepare appellant for the punishment phase; or (3) trial counsel allowed jurors to be seated who were biased against appellant based upon prior acquaintance. Decisions to introduce evidence fall within the zone of trial strategy, and testimony from trial counsel during the hearing on the motion for new trial indicates he made the decision not to introduce certain photographic evidence and testimony from appellant's wife based on trial strategy. Thus, we cannot say trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. With respect to the erroneous advice about appeal bond eligibility, the trial court was free to reject the agreed punishment recommendation if indeed appellant had accepted it, so there is no reasonable probability of a different outcome. No reversible error is presented based on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant's point of error is overruled. We have also made an independent examination of the entire record to determine whether there are any arguable grounds which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 ( 1988); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds and agree with counsel that the appeal is without merit and is, therefore, frivolous. Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Cr.App. 1974); Lacy v. State, 477 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Tex.Cr.App. 1972). Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is hereby granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Don H. Reavis Justice Do not publish. 1. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).