Nos. 12-09-00096-CR, 12-09-00097-CR
Opinion delivered July 7, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeals from the 7th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.
PER CURIAM.
John Nelson Landrum appeals his convictions for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen years and two years respectively. Appellant's counsel filed a brief in 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 separate indictments with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and possession of less than one gram of methamphetamine. Appellant pleaded "guilty" as charged to each charged offense. The trial court admonished Appellant and accepted his "guilty" pleas. Thereafter, following a bench trial on punishment, the trial court found Appellant "guilty" as charged in each cause and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for eighteen years for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and two years for possession of a controlled substance. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TOANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v.California and Gainous v. State. Appellant's counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See alsoInre Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed.