## 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 145T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT CO URT

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)

,

a nd Gainous v. State

, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with dog fighting. He pleaded “not guilty,” and the
matter proceeded to a jury trial. The j ury 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.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA 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, 8122 (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.

C ONCLUSION 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 do ne 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 thi s 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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

thirt y days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing
was overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review
must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal 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 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 W orthen, 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 th e 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

.