NO. 12-15-00168-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TAZZIE MAE GRAY, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 145TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Tazzie Mae Gray appeals her conviction for unlawful restraint. 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 the offense of unlawful restraint, exposing the 

victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury, a second degree felony. The indictment also 

included a felony enhancement paragraph.1 Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense charged in 

the indictment. Appellant and her counsel signed various documents in connection with her 

guilty plea, including a stipulation and judicial confession in which Appellant swore, and 

judicially confessed, that the facts alleged in the indictment were true and correct, and 

constituted the evidence in the case. Appellant also pleaded “true” to the enhancement 

paragraph. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, adjudged Appellant guilty of unlawful 

restraint, exposure to serious bodily injury, and found the enhancement paragraph to be “true.” 

The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at ten years of imprisonment, but ordered that 

 

1 Appellant was also charged with the offense of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a first degree 

felony, as “Count 1” in the same indictment. However, Appellant does not appeal the conviction of that offense.
2

Appellant’s sentence be suspended, and placed Appellant on community supervision for ten 

years. 

Later, the State filed a second amended motion for revocation, alleging that Appellant 

had violated the terms of her community supervision. The State abandoned the last three 

paragraphs of its motion to revoke, and Appellant pleaded “true” to the remaining allegations in 

the motion. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations to be “true,” revoked 

Appellant’s community supervision, and assessed her punishment at ten years of imprisonment.

This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he 

has 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. From our 

review of counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this 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 summation of the procedural history of the case, 

and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have 

reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.2 See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw in the case. See In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 

813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel 

that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is granted, 

and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

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 her of her right to file a petition for discretionary 

 

2 Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed 

Appellant that she had the right to file her own brief. Appellant was given time to file her own brief, but the time for 

filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.
3

review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant 

wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, she must either 

retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or she must file a pro se petition for 

discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for 

discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the 

day 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. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the 

requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; 

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

Opinion delivered May 27. 2016.

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

MAY 27, 2016

NO. 12-15-00168-CR

TAZZIE MAE GRAY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court 

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1118811)

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.