## NO S

. 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 §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 8 TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

RAINS COUNTY , TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Brandon Lee Rich appeals following the revocation of his community supervi sion.

Appellant’s counsel filed a brie f in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.
Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gai nous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Cri m. App.

1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictmen t with evading arrest or detention wit h a vehicle and

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

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

imprisonm ent , probate d for ten years.

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

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

on the State’s motion, at which Appell ant pleaded “true” to some of the Stat e’s allegations in

each motion

. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant v iolate d

certain terms of his community s upervision as alleged in the State’s motions. As a result, the2 trial cou rt granted the motions to revoke and s entenced Appellant to ten years imprisonment

. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALI FORNIA
Appellant ’ s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.

State

. Appellant ’ s counsel states that he diligently re viewed 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 wit h Anders

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

Op.] 1978), Appellant ’ s bri ef presents a chrono logical summation of the procedural history of

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

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

C ONCLUSI ON
As required by St afford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant ’ s

counsel moved for leave t o withdraw. See also In re Schulman , 25 2 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration w ith the merits.

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

t o 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

d ays 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 re view. 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 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 d ays from either the date of this

opinion or the date that the last timely motion for reh earing 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

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State , Appella nt ’ s counsel provid ed Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to f il e a pro se response,

a nd took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant ’ s review of the appellate recor d. See Kelly v. St ate , 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 h as expired and no pro se brief has been filed.3 Cri minal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should

comply with the requir ements of Texas Rule of Appellate Proced ure 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, Texa s (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 jud gment

of the court below be in all things affirmed , and for which execution may issue, and that this

decision be certif ied to the cour t below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Wor then, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley , J.

## COUR T OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF AP PEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 21 , 2023

NO. 12

- 23

- 0000 5

- CR

BRANDON LEE RICH , Appellant
V.
TH E STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court

of Rain s County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 601 2 )

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 the re wa s no error in the

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment

of the court below be in al l things affirmed , and for which execution may issue, and that this

decision be certif ied to the court below for observance.

By per curia m opinion

. Panel co nsisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley , J

.