## NO. 12

- 20

- 00194

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT DANE WILBURN , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 145TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORAN DUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Robert Dane Wilburn appeals his conviction for indecency with a child

. Appellant’s

counse l fi led 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). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

B ACKGROU ND Appellant was c harg ed by indictment with indecency with a child and pleaded “guilty.” The State further alleged that Appellant previously had been convicted of two felonies , to which Appellant pleaded “true

. ” 1 The trial court accepted Appellant’s pleas , and the matter proc eeded to a trial on punishment. At the punishment hearing, the trial court heard testimony from a police officer, who testified that Appe llant was accused of committing another offense just days prior to the
commencement of punishment proceedings

. T he v ictim testified to the circumstances underlying
the offense . Mor eover, Appellant’s sister testified that Appellant committed similar sexua l

1 The State stipulated to the trial court that it only intended to use one of Appellant’s plea of “true” for enhancement purposes

.2 offenses against her in the past. Appellant and his wife testified on Appellant’s behalf. During
his testimon y, Appellant denied committing any sexual offenses against his sister. Ultimately , the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged , found t he relevant enhancement allegation to be “true , ” and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ninety

- nine

years. T his 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 states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the

o pinion 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 acqu ainted 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 fu rther states tha t Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 2 Thereafter, Appellant f iled a pro se brief , in which he raised the following issues: (1) the trial court erroneously held part of the punishment proceedings while he was absent; (2) he was convicted in spite of the fact that he was charged outside of the applicable limitations p e riod for the offense; (3) he received ineffective assistance of c ounsel both at the trial and appellate level; and (4) the evidence supporting his conviction is insufficient in light of evidence he presented constituting an alibi

. 3 We have reviewed the r ecord for reversible error and have found none.
See Bledsoe v. State , 1 78 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

2 In compliance with Kelly v. Stat e , Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant w ith 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 appel la te record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3 d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

3 We have construed Appellant’s brief and the issues raised therein liberally in the interest of justic e. See Gill v. State , No. 12

- 11

- 00282

- CR, 2012 WL 3804369, at *1 n.2 (T ex . App.

– Tyler Aug. 31, 2012, pet. ref’d) ( mem. op., not designated for publication).3 C ONCLUSION As require d by Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (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. A pp. 2008) ( orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the m erits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant ’ s counsel ’ s motion for leave to
withdraw is here by granted and the appeal is affirmed

. As a result of our disposition o f this case, Appellant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of th e 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re
Sc hulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to se ek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for
disc retionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretion ary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review mu st be file d within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overrul ed by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretio nary review must be filed with th e Texas C ourt of Criminal Appeals. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3 (a) . Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Ru le of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d
at 408 n .22. Opinion delivered July 21, 2021. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. , Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGM ENT

JULY 21 , 2021

NO. 12

- 20

- 00194

- CR

ROB ERT DANE WILBURN , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court
of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1622665 )

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on th e appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considere d, it is the opinion of this court that the re was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the cou rt below be in all things affir med , and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observan ce. By per curiam opinion

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