Opinion
NO. 12-15-00150-CR
05-27-2016
TARAYSHUS NIJELL THOMPSON, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 114TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY, TEXASMEMORANDUM OPINION
Tarayshus Nijell Thompson appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation. 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 affirm.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of burglary of a habitation, a second degree felony. Appellant pleaded "guilty" to the offense charged in the indictment. Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty plea, including a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore, and judicially confessed, that the facts alleged in the indictment were true and correct, and constituted the evidence in the case. The trial court accepted Appellant's plea, found the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of Appellant's guilt, and deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt. The court also ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years.
Later, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. At the hearing, the State abandoned paragraph four of the application. Appellant pleaded "true" to the remaining allegations. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations to be "true" and granted the State's application. The court then revoked Appellant's community supervision, adjudged Appellant guilty of burglary of a habitation, and assessed his punishment at fifteen years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating 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. From our review of counsel's brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. --------
CONCLUSION
As required, Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw in the case. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is granted, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered May 27, 2016.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0681-13)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.