T he r ecor d re f l ect s t hat t he St at e f

i l ed a n ot i ce of

i nt ent t o s eek a s ent enc i ng en han cement an d t hen f i l ed 1
an a men ded n ot i ce of

i n t en t
. T h e r ec or d be f or e u s c on t ai n s t wo copi es of t h e ame n ded n ot i ce of i n t en t a n d doe s n ot cont ai n a copy of

t he f i r s t not i ce. Ap pel l ant pl eaded t r ue t o t he amended not i ce. 

## NO. 12–08–00022–CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

KEV IN WAYN E MO SS, § APP EAL FRO

M T HE 2 41 ST APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § SMI TH CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPINION PER CU RIAM Kevin Way

ne Moss a ppeals his c onviction f

or ag gravated assault. Appellant’s c ounsel filed
a brief asser

ting compliancewith Anders v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L . Ed. 2d 493 (1967) a

nd Ga ino us v

. St ate , 436 S.W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant filed a pr o se br ie f. We d ism iss Ap pe lla nt’ s a pp e a l.

B ACKG ROUND Appellant wa s charg ed by indictment with ag gravated assault. The grand jury further alleg ed that App e lla

nt u se d a de a dly we a po n in the a ssa ult . Prior to tr ia l, the State g ave no tic e purs ua nt t o Bro ok s v . St ate , 957 S.W .2d 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), th at i t i n t ended to se ek a greater punis hme nt b a se d o n App e lla nt’ s h avin gbe e n tw ic e be fo re c onvic te d of unr e late d f e lony of fe ns e s. 1 The jury found Appe llant guilty

of ag g ravated assault and found that he used a de adly wea pon in theA g g ra v a te d a ssa u lt o f a p e rs o n w h o is no t a p o lice o ff ic e r o r a se c u rity gu a rd is a se c o n d d e g re e felo n y. 2 T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 2 2 .0 2 (a ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). T h e p u n ish m e n t ra n g e fo r a felo n y o the r th a n a sta te ja il f el ony i s en han ced t o t wen t y –f i ve y ear s t o l i f

e i n pr i s on i f

t he St at e a l l ege s an d proves , as he r e, t hat t he pers on ha s t wo pri o r f

el o ny co nvi ct i o ns, t hat bo t h co nvi ct i o ns cam e b ef o re t he co m m i ss i o n of t he i nst ant off ense, and t hat one p rio r c o n v ic tio n b e c a m e fi n a l b e fo re the c o m m issio n o f t h e o the r p rio r o ff e n se . T EX . P E N A L C O D E A NN . § 12. 42( d) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ).

W e no te tha t t h e e v id e n c e tha t A p p e llan t ar g u e s sh o u ld ha v e b e e n a llo w e d w a s a d m itt e d a n d tha t his 3 at t o rney argued t o t he jur y t hat “ D

– La cy” o r “ D

– Lo ve” was res p o nsi b l e f o r t he shoo t i ng. 2 commission of the offe nse. Appe llant pleaded tr ue to the sente ncingenhan ce m en t , an dthe jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment. This appea l followed. 2

A N A LY SI S P URS UANT T O A N D ER S V . C A L IFO R N IA Appellant’s c ounsel has filed a brief in c ompliance with Andersand Ga ino us . Counsel states that he has dilig ently

revie wed the a

ppellate recor d and that he is well ac quainted with the fa cts of th is c a s e . In c o mp li ance w ith Ander s , Ga ino us , and Hig

h v . St ate , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1978), c ounsel’s brief prese nts a thorough chronolog ical summary of the proc edura l history of the c a se and

fu rt he r s tate s th at c ouns e l is un a ble to p re se nt a

ny argua ble iss ue s f

or a pp e a l. Appellant argues in his pro se brief that the trial court err ed by not a llowing him to explore evidenc e that, while on the w ay to the hospital, the victim said he was shot by a per son named

“ D–L a c y” or

“ D–L ov e .” Th e vic timte sti fi e d th at he kn e w o f a pe rs on named “Dee L acy ,” and

it appea rs from the r ecor d that Dee L acy and Appellant are not the same pe rson. We have c onsidered the briefing and have conducte d our own independe nt r eview of the re cord. See Anders , 3 86 U. S.
at 74 5, 87 S. Ct . at 14 00 ; see also Penso n v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L . Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have f ound no reve rsible er

ror. See Ble ds oe

v . St ate , 178 S.W .3d 824, 826–27 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCL US I ON As require d, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. SeeIn re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig . proce eding ); Sta ff ord v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503, 511 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ). We a re in a gre e me nt w ithAp pe lla nt’s cou ns e l th at th e a

pp e a l is wh oll y3

frivo lou s. Ac c or din g ly , h is m oti on fo r l e ave to wi th draw is he reby gra nte d, and we dis mis s th is appea l. See In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408–09 (“After the completion of these four steps, the
c ourt of a pp e a ls wi ll e ith e r a g re e that the a pp e a l is wh oll y frivo lou s, gra nt t he atto rn e y ’s mot ion

to withdraw, a

nd dismiss the appe al, or it wi ll determine that ther e may be plausible grounds for appea l.”). Counsel has a duty

to, within five day s of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and a dvise him of his right to file a petition f or discretionar

y revie w. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 8. 4; In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 4 1 1 n . 3 5

. Should Appellant wish to seek further revie w of this case by

the Texas Court of

Criminal Appeals, he must either reta in an attorne y to file a pe tition for discretionar y revie w or he must file a pro se petition for discre tionary revie w. See In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discre tionary revie w must be filed within thirty day s from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehe aringthat was
overr uled by this court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discre tionary

revie w must be filed wi th t his c ourt , a ft e r whic h it

wi ll b e fo rw ard e d to the Te xas C ourt of Cr imi na l A

pp e a ls a lon gwi th the re st of the filing s in this case. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3. Any petition for discre tionary revie w should comply

with the require ments of Rule 68.4 of the Tex as Rules of Appellate Procedur e. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6 8. 4; In re Schu lm an , 252 S.W .3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivere d May

13, 2009. Pane l co ns is t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)