NO. 12-18-00119-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IRA LEE TUTT, III, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 145TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Ira Lee Tutt, III appeals his conviction for dog fighting. 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.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with dog fighting. He pleaded “not guilty,” and the 

matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged. Appellant 

subsequently pleaded “true” to an enhancement allegation, and the trial court assessed his 

punishment at imprisonment for ten years and $3,672.00 in restitution. 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 relates that he has diligently reviewed and evaluated the record and 

found no arguable grounds for appeal. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 
2

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the 

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.1

We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the 

record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error.

CONCLUSION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (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. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial 

court.

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 these cases 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 

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

thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing 

was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 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 Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered February 6, 2019.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

 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. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief 

has been filed.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 6, 2019

NO. 12-18-00119-CR

IRA LEE TUTT, III,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court 

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1420570)

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 opinion.

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