## NO. 12

- 21

- 00223

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EDDIE LYNN BRYAN

, A PPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 273RD

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SAN AUGUSTINE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDU M OPINION

PER CURIAM

Eddie Lynn Bryan appeals his conviction for harassment by persons in certain facilities

.

A ppellant’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.

B ACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with h arassment by persons in certain facilities

. 1

H e pleaded “ not guilty

, ” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.

At trial, the evidence showed that Appellant was an inmate in the San Augustine County

Jail. One day, the jail administrator, the chief deput y, and Jail Sergeant Angela Bradberry

moved him from an isolation cell to a general population cell. During the move, Appellant

called Bradber ry a bitch and told her that he was not going to tolerate the move and would “ get”

her.

That day, every time Bra dberry made a round, Appellant let her know he was unhappy

, including telling her what he was going to do to her sexually. Bradberry ignored t he comments.

1 A third

- degree felony. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22. 11 ( a )( 1 ), ( b ) ( Wes t 2019 )

.2 Around ten o’clock, when Bradberry was giving medication to another inmate through the bean

hole

, 2 Appellant reached through the bean hole

, grabbed the apparatus used during cell checks

, grabbed Bradberry, and tried unsuccessfully to remove t he apparatus from her hand. Later, when

Bradberry opened the bean hole at mealtime, Appellant threw a cup full o f urine on her.

Afterwards, he said, “I told you, bitch, I was going to get you. This is TDC style.”

Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “gui lty” and assessed h is punishment at

imprisonment for ten years

. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDE RS V

. C ALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.

State

. Appellant’s counsel relates tha t he has reviewed the record and concluded the appeal is

frivolou s. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807, 81 2 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.]

1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the recor d demonstrating why

ther e are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 3

W e conducted a n independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible

error

. See i d. We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous

. See i d.

C ONCLUSION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. St a t

e , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 ( T ex

. 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 mer its. Having d one so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the

appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s m otion for leave to withdra w and

affirm the trial court’s judgment

. Appellant’s counsel has a duty to , w ithin five days of the date of this opi nion, send a

copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise h im of h is right to file a petition fo r

dis cretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re Schulman

, 252 S.W.3 d at 411 n .35. Should

2 A slot in the cell wall through which items are passed.

3 In compliance with Kelly v. State , App ellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of the motion to withdraw as counsel, info rmed Appellant of h is right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate r ecord. See Kelly v. State

, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. T he time for filing such a brief has expired, and no pro se brief was filed.3 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 o n h is behalf or he must file a

pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed

within thirty day s f ro m either the date of this opinion or the da t e that the last timely motion for

rehearing was overruled by thi s court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2( a)

. Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Crimin al Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P. 68. 3 ( a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule

68.4 of th e Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered August 30, 2022.

Panel consisted of Worthe n, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## C OURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DIS TRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 30 , 2022

NO. 12

- 21

- 00223

- CR

EDDIE LYNN BRYAN

, Appe llant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

Appeal from the 273rd District Court

of San Augustine County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR

- 2 0

- 9186 )

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 opini on

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