Opinion
NO. 12-14-00170-CR
07-22-2015
GREGORY LEE WEST, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 SMITH COUNTY, TEXASMEMORANDUM OPINION
Gregory Lee West appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated, for which he was sentenced to confinement for two hundred forty days. 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 information with driving while intoxicated and pleaded "not guilty." The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant "guilty" as charged and assessed his punishment at confinement for two hundred forty days. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.
The jury made a finding of "true" that a specimen of Appellant's blood, breath, or urine had an alcohol concentration level of 0.15 or more at the time the analysis was performed. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.04(d) (West Supp. 2014).
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS 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.
Counsel for Appellant sets forth in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. 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. --------
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 also In re 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, we grant Appellant's counsel's motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.
As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant's 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 review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. 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 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered July 22, 2015.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the County Court at Law No 2 of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 002-82573-13)
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.