No. 12-10-00247-CR
Opinion delivered August 17, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appealed from the 217th Judicial District Court, Angelina County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Donnie Ray Sanders appeals his convictions for three counts of aggravated assault. 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 dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND
An Angelina County grand jury returned an indictment charging Appellant with three counts of aggravated assault and three counts of intoxication assault. The grand jury also alleged that Appellant had a prior felony conviction. Appellant pleaded guilty to the three counts of aggravated assault and pleaded true to the sentencing enhancement. There was no plea agreement, but the State dismissed the three intoxication assault counts the same day Appellant signed the plea papers. The trial court accepted Appellant's guilty plea, found him guilty, and assessed a sentence of imprisonment for thirty years. 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). 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 dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408-09 ("After the completion of these four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the attorney's motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be plausible grounds for appeal."). 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 last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. 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.