1 

## NO. 12

- 0 9

- 00 351

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CYNTHIA GAIL SHEPARD , § APPEAL FROM THE 173RD APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE § HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Cynthia Gail Shepard app eals h er conviction for indecency with a child. Appellant ’ s counsel has filed a brief asserting 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 dismiss the appeal.

B ACKGROUND A Henderson County grand jury returned an indictment against Appellant alleging in two
counts that she committed the felony offense of indecency with a child. 1 Appellant pleaded
guilty to the first count, a second degree felony, an d the State agreed to abandon the second count. 2
Appellant elected to have a jury assess her sentence. After a trial, the jury found her guilty
and assessed punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years. This appeal followed.

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 21.11 (Vernon Supp. 2011).

2 In the first count, the grand jury alleged that Appellant committed indecency with a child by engaging in sexual contact with the child. See id . § 21.11(a)(1).2 A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA Appellant = s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous . Counsel
states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the
facts of this case. In compliance with Anders

, G ainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural
history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for
appeal. 3 See And

ers , 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80,
109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have considered counsel’s brief and have conducted our own independent review of

the record. We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. 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 couns el that the appeal
is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted , and we

dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408

B 09 (“After the completion of these
four steps, the court of appeals will either agr ee that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the

attorney = s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be plausible grounds for appeal.”).
Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a cop y 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 Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant
wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas C ourt of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he 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 last
timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2. Any

3 Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file h er own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired

, and we have received no pro se brief.3

petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.4; In re Schulman , 252

S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered June 30 , 2011. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)