### In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06

- 11

- 00 068

- CR

______________________________

HOMER C. SWARN , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 241st Judicial District Court

Smith County, Texas

Trial Court No. 241

- 1260

- 10

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Homer C. Swarn appeals from his conviction in a Smith County 1 jury trial for aggravated

assault with a deadly weapon. Swarn pled guilty, and he also pled true to an enhancement.

Punishment was assessed by a jury at seventy

- five years’ imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine.

Swarn’s attorney on appeal has filed a bri ef which discusses the record and reviews the

proceedings in detail. Counsel has thus provided a professional evaluation of the record

demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. This meets the

requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503

(Tex. Crim. App. 1981); and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Counsel mailed a copy of the brief and a letter to Swarn on July 15, 2011, informing Swarn

of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record. No response has been

filed. Counsel has also filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal.

We have determined that this appeal is wholly frivolo us. We have independently

reviewed the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record, and find no genuinely arguable issue. See

Halbert v. Michigan , 545 U.S. 605, 623 (2005). We therefore agree with counsel’s assessment

1 Originally appealed to the Twelfth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2005). We are

unaware of any conflict between precedent of the Twelfth Court of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant

issue. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 41.3.3

that no arguable issues support an app eal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: September 29, 2011

Date Decided: September 30, 2011

Do Not Publish

2 Since we agree this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel ’ s request to

withdraw from further representation of appellant in this case. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should

appellant wish to seek f

urther review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retain

an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or appellant must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

Any petition for discretionary revie w must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last

timely motion for rehearing or for en banc reconsideration was overruled by this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2.

Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.3. (amended by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Misc. Docket No. 11

- 104, effective Sept. 1, 2011).

Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of R ule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.4.