## NO. 12

- 1 2

- 00 143

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RODNEY DEWAYNE TISDALE

, § APPEAL S FROM THE 1 14 TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Rodney Dewayne Tisdale appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a

felon. 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.

B ACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by information with the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm by

a felon, a third degree felony. 1 The information also included a felony enhancement paragraph. 2

Appellant entered an “open” plea of guilty to the offense charged in the information. Appellant and

his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty plea, including a stipulation of

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 46.04(a)(2), (e) (West 2011).

2 If it is shown on the trial of a third degree felony that the defendant has previously been finally convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony punishable under Section 12.35(a) of the Texas Penal Code, on conviction the defendant shall be punishe d for a second degree felony. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.42( a ) ( West Supp. 201 2 ).2

evidence in which Appellant swore that all allegations pleaded in the information were true and

correct. He also pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraph. The trial court found the evidence

sufficient to substantiate Appellant’s guilty plea.

After a punishment hearing, the trial court adjudged Appellant guilty of unlawful possession

of a firearm by a felon, found the enhancement paragraph to be “true,” and assessed his punishment at

ten years of imprisonment and court costs. 3 This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel file d a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating 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. From our re view of

counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In

compliance with Anders

, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978),

counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of t he procedural history of the case, and further

states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have reviewed the record for

reversible error and have found none. 4 See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION

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 the trial court’s

judgment is affirmed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2.

Counsel has a duty to, within five da ys of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion

3 An individual adjudged guilty of a second degree felony shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of not more than twenty years or less than two years and, in addi tion, a fine not to exceed $10,000. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.33 (West 2011).

4 Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given ti me to file his own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.3

and judgment to Appellant and advise him of h is right to file a petition for discretionary review. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek

f urther 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 p etition 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be

filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered May 31 , 2013. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH)4 

### COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 31 , 201 3

NO. 12

- 12

- 00 143

- CR

RODNEY DEWAYNE TISDALE
,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th Judicial District Court

of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 0390

- 1 2 )

TH I S 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 w as n o error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant ’ s
counsel ’s motion to withdraw is granted

, 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., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.