NO. 12-18-00322-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MYLES CHRISTOPHER GRAY, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 392ND 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Myles Christopher Gray appeals convictions for burglary of a building. 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). Thereafter, 

Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with nine counts of burglary of a building and 

pleaded “not guilty.” The State further alleged that Appellant previously had been convicted of 

two felonies. The matter proceeded to a jury trial at which an accomplice witness testified that he, 

Appellant, and another individual drove in separate vehicles to Mid-Cities Storage. There, the 

accomplice eventually entered a storage unit without the owner’s consent and took a motorcycle. 

An eyewitness observed Appellant and another man use bolt cutters to remove locks from two 

storage units, but the men saw her watching them and did not enter these storage buildings. 

Appellant left the scene in his vehicle, while the two other men loaded the motorcycle into a truck 

to transport it to another location. The maintenance worker for Mid-Cities Storage testified that, 

while performing a lock check, he noticed that lock hasps were cut on eight or nine units. The 

investigating officer testified concerning the surveillance video from Mid-Cities Storage, in which 
2

he observed individuals cutting locks and burglarizing storage units. 

The jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged on each of the nine counts. The matter 

proceeded to a trial on punishment, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to the two enhancement 

allegations. Ultimately, the jury found the enhancement allegations to be “true” and assessed 

Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for two years on each of seven counts and imprisonment 

for ten years on each of the remaining two counts. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, 

and this appeal followed.

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.1

Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised the following issues: (1)

insufficiency of the evidence and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.2 See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

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. 

 1 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified 

Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took 

concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

2 We have construed Appellant’s brief and the issues raised therein liberally in the interest of justice. See 

Gill v. State, No. 12-11-00282-CR, 2012 WL 3804369, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.–Tyler Aug. 31, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication).
3

Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

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 date that the last timely motion for rehearing 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 October 17, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 16, 2019

NO. 12-18-00322-CR

MYLES CHRISTOPHER GRAY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 392nd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR18-0244-392)

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, 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.