Opinion
NO. 12-11-00088-CR
05-31-2012
ROBERT GLENN REYNOLDS, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Robert Glenn Reynolds appeals his conviction for evading arrest or detention. Appellant's counsel has filed a brief asserting 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
On April 5, 2007, a Smith County grand jury returned an indictment against Appellant alleging that he committed the offense of evading arrest or detention. As alleged, the offense was a state jail felony because the grand jury alleged that Appellant committed the offense in a vehicle. Appellant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to confinement for two years. The trial court suspended the sentence and placed him on community supervision for a period of two years. In 2007, the State filed to revoke Appellant's suspended sentence alleging that he had used or possessed illegal narcotics. Appellant was placed in an intensive community supervision program, and the term of his community supervision was extended by three years.
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 38.04(b)(1)(B) (West Supp. 2011).
Appellant completed the intensive community supervision and was returned to regular community supervision in 2008. In 2011, the State again filed to revoke Appellant's community supervision. In its pleading, the State alleged that Appellant had possessed or used cocaine, that he had attempted to evade the drug testing measures that were part of his community supervision, and that he had contact with a person who was involved with controlled substances.
Appellant pleaded true to several of the allegations made in the State's application. There were seven allegations in all. The State abandoned two allegations, and the trial court found one allegation unproven and four allegations to be true. The trial court granted the State's application, revoked Appellant's suspended sentence, and assessed a sentence of confinement in the state jail for one year. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel's brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).
Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and of the record. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief.
--------
We have considered counsel's brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
CONCLUSION
As required, Appellant's counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. 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 hereby granted, and we affirm the trial court's judgment. 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 after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). 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 31, 2012.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
NO. 12-11-00088-CR
ROBERT GLENN REYNOLDS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court of
Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0839-07)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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, Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted; and that this decision be certified to the trial court below for observance.