NOS. 12-23-00004-CR

 12-23-00005-CR 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BRANDON LEE RICH, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 8TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RAINS COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Brandon Lee Rich appeals following the revocation of his community supervision. 

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 evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and 

assault causing bodily injury, family violence, impeding breath or circulation. Appellant pleaded 

“guilty” to both charges. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was sentenced to ten years

imprisonment, probated for ten years. 

Thereafter, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision in both 

cases alleging Appellant violated certain terms and conditions thereof. A hearing was conducted 

on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to some of the State’s allegations in 

each motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated

certain terms of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motions. As a result, the 
2

trial court granted the motions to revoke and sentenced Appellant to ten years imprisonment. 

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 states that he 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. He further relates that he is well-acquainted with the facts in this case. In 

compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel 

Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of 

the case and further states that Appellant's counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for 

appeal.1 We likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel 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 and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel's motion for leave 

to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

As a result of our disposition of this case, 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 this case 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 petition for discretionary review pro se. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this 

opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of 

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. See Kelly v. State, 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.
3

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should 

comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 21, 2023.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 21, 2023

NO. 12-23-00004-CR

BRANDON LEE RICH,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court

of Rains County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 6011)

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 for which execution may issue, 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.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 21, 2023

NO. 12-23-00005-CR

BRANDON LEE RICH,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court

of Rains County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 6012)

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 for which execution may issue, 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.