## NOS. 12-07-00335-CR 12-07-00336-CR 12-07-00337-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

MARK HARRIS, § APPEALS FROM THE

SEV ENTH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Mar k Har ris appea ls his two convictions for sexual assault of a c hild and one convic tion for improper photog raphy . Appellant ente red ple as of guilty without benefit of a

plea ba rg ain. The tria l court a ssessed punishment at eig hteen y ear s of imprisonment and a $10,000

. 0 0 fi ne in ea ch of the sexual assault cases a

nd two y ear s of conf

inement in a state jail f

acility in the improper photog raphy
c a se . App e lla

nt’ s c ouns e l f

ile d a mot ion to w ith dr a

w a nd a br ie f i n s up po rt

of that mo tio n in compliance with Ande rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. C t. 1396, 18 L . Ed. 2d 4 9 3 (1 9 6 7) and Ga ino us v

. St ate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). There afte r, Appellant filed a pro se br ief. We d ism iss Ap pe lla

nt’ s a pp e a ls.

A N A LY SI S P URS UANT T O A N D ER S V . C A L IFO R N

IA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Ande rs and Ga ino us in eac h of the thre e
case s, stating that he has dilige ntly revie wed the a

ppellate r ecor ds and is of t he opini on that the re cords ref lect no re versible e rror

and that there is no err or upon which a n appea l can be predic ated. He further2

relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Ande rs , Ga ino us , and Hig h v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Te x . Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s br ief pre sents a chr onologic al
su mmatio n o f t

he pr oc e dura l hi sto ry

of the c a se s, and

fu rt he r s tate s th a t App e lla

nt’ s c ouns e l is un a

ble to raise a ny arguable issues for

appea l. Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he r aised issues conc erningsufficie ncy of the e vidence , ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, the voluntariness of his pleas , admi ssibili ty

of ce rtain evide nce, prosec utorial misconduct, due pr ocess violations, discover y ab u s e, and the leg ality

of the sente nces assessed. We have re viewed the rec ords for r ever sible err or and ha ve found none

. See Bledsoe v. Sta te , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826-27 (Te x . Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCL US I ON As requir ed, Appe llant’s counsel ha s moved for le ave to withdra w. See In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W. 3d 40 3, 40 7 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 08 ) (o ri g . p ro c e e din g ); Sta ff ord v . St ate , 8 1 3 S. W. 2 d

5 0 3 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1991). We are in ag ree ment with Appellant’s counsel that the appe al is wholly frivolous
an d h i s m o t i o nf

o r l e a v e t o w i t h dr aw i s h e r e b y granted

. See In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408-09. Counsel has a duty

to, within five day s of t he date of t his opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment t o Appellant and advise him of hi s rig ht to file a petition for discretionary revie w. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 4 8. 4; In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek fur ther revie w of this case by

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either reta in a n attorney to f

ile a petition for discre tionary revie w or he must file a pr o se petition for discr etionary revie w. Any

petition fo r dis c re tio na

ry re vie w mus t be f

ile d w ith in t

hir ty da y s f ro m th e date of

e ith e r t his op ini on

or the la st timely motion for rehe aringthat was ove rruled by this court. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.2. Any petition for discr etionary

revie w must be filed with t h i s co u rt, afte r which it will be for war ded to the Te x as Court of C riminal Appea ls along with the rest of t he fili ng s in this case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should c omply

with the require ments of Rule 68.4 of the Te x as Rules of Appe llate Proce dure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6 8. 4; In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408 n.22. We dis miss Ap pe lla

nt’ s a pp e a ls. Opinion delivere d April 15, 2009. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J. (DO N OT PUBL I SH)