## NO. 12

- 20

- 00050

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT LAWRENCE THO M PSON , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Robert Lawrence Thompson app eals h is conviction s for aggravated robbery and arson

. Appell ant ’ 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. Stat e , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm

.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with aggrav ated robbery (count one ), stating that while in the course of committing theft of property and with intent to obtain or maintain control
of the property, he intentionally and knowingly caus ed serious bodily injury to another person by setting that person o n fire , or that he intenti onally, knowingly, and recklessly caus ed bodily injury to a person by setting that person on fire and using or exhibi ting a deadly weapon, lighter fluid and/or a BB gun , a first degree felony. 1 The indictment also charged Appella nt with aggravated robbery (count two ), stating that in the course of committing theft of property and
with intent to obtain or maintain contro l of the property, he intentionally , knowingly and recklessly caus ed serious bodily injury to a person sixty

- five years of age or older by taping her

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A N N

. § 29.03 (a)(1) , (2), (b) (West 2019 )

.2 eyes and/or hands and/or feet , or that he intentionally and knowingly threatened or placed a person sixty

- five years or older in fear of imminent bodily injury or death , a first degree felony. 2 Finally, Appellant was ch arged by indictment with arson (count three) , stating that with intent to destroy or damage a building, start a fire, or cause an explosion , by igniting lighter
fluid , and was reckless about whether the burning or explosion would endanger the life of some individual and the safety of the property of another, by pouring light er fluid within the building and persons suffered bodily injury as a resu lt of the fire or explosion, or that he knew the building was within the limits of an incorporated city or town, namely, Palestine, Texas, and a person suffered bodily injury as a result of the fire or explosion , a first degree felony

. 3 Appellant entered “ open” plea s of “ guilty ” to the charged offense s , speci fically, the second paragraph , or manner and means , of each count as the State abandoned the first

paragrap h , or manner and means , of each count

. Appellant and his counsel signed various
documents in c onnection with his plea s , including a stipulation of e vidence i n which he
consented to the introduction of eviden ce in support of the trial court’s judgment, and judicially confessed to the offenses alleged in the indictment , admitted that he committed eac h and every element alleged in the complaint , and admi tted that he was guilty as charged

. The Appellant pleaded “true” to one felony enhancement

. The trial court accepted Appellant’s “ guilty ” plea s , found the evidence sufficient to substantiate his pleas , found the enhancement paragraph to be “true,” found that Appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon in count o ne of the indictment,
and adjudged Appellant guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of arson causing bodily injury

. The Appe llant elected for the jury to assess punishment. A fter a sentencing hearing, the jury asse ssed A ppellant’s punis hment at life imprisonmen t and a $10,000.00 fine for each count

. 4 T h is appeal followe d

.

2 See id

. § 29.03(a) (3)(A), (b) (West 2019 ).

3 See id

. § 2 8.02 (a)( 2)( A ), (d)(1) (West 2019 ).

4 If it is shown on th e trial of a first degree felony that the defendant has previously been finally convicted of a felony other than a state jail felony punishable under Section 12.35(a), on conviction the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment f or li fe, or for any term of not more than ninety

- nine years or less than fifteen years , and a fine not to exceed $10,0 0 0.00. See id

. § 12. 42(c)(1) (West 2019 ).3 A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant ’ s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating that he diligently rev iewed the appellate r ecord and is of the opini on that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. F rom our review of counsel ’ s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the fact s in th is case. In compliance with Anders , Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel ’ s brief presents a chronological summ ation of the procedural history of the case,
and further states that counsel is unable to ra ise any arguable issue s for appeal. 5 We have

r eviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 82 6

– 27 (Tex. Crim . App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. A pp. 1991), Appellant’ s counsel mo ve d for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried th e motion for consideration with the
merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, App ellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to with draw is hereby granted , and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
43.2. Appellant’s counsel h as 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 rig ht to file a petition for discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re Schulman , 22 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Sh o uld Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal s, he
must either ret ain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman , 2 2 S.W.3d at 408 n. 22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of eit her this opinion, or if a motion for rehearing is filed, the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by
this C ourt. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2 (a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with
the Texas Cour t of Criminal Appe als. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary

5 In compliance with Kelly v. State , Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief , notified Appellant of h is motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of h is right to file a pro se respo n se, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Cr im. A pp. 2014). Appellant was given time to file h is own brief . The time for filing such brief has expired and no pro s e brief has been filed.4 review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of A ppellate
Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; In re Schulman , 22 S.W.3d at 408 n. 22. Opinion delivered June 30, 2021. Pa nel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDG MENT

JUNE 30 , 2021

NO. 12

- 20

- 00050

- CR

ROBERT LAWRENCE THOMPSON , Appel lant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 87th District Court
of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 87CR

- 19

- 34121 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considere d, it is the opinion of t his court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECR E ED that the judgment of
the cou rt 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.