## NO. 12

- 15

- 00009

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JOE LYNN PITTMAN,
APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINI ON
PER CURIAM

Joe Lynn Pittman appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

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

.

B ACKGROUND
The indictment in this case alleged that Appellant caused bodily injury to the victim by

striking her with his hand and kicking her with his foot. The indictment further alleged that

Appellant use d a firearm during the assault. A jury found Appellant guilty of aggravated assault

with a deadly weapon and assessed a punishment of imprisonment for fifteen years.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA
Appellant’ s counsel filed a brief in complian ce with Anders and Gainous

. Appellant ’s

counsel states that he has reviewed the record and concluded that it reflects no jurisdictional

defects or reversible error. In compliance with Anders

, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. [P anel Op.] 1978), Appellant’ s brief presents a chronological procedural

history of the case and a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no2

arguable issues for appeal. 1 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Gainous , 436

S.W.2d at 138; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300

(1988). We have conducted an independent review of the record and have found no reversible

error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2005). Accordingly, we

conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous.

C ONCLUSION
As required 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 (Te x.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Having concluded that this appeal is wholly frivolous, we

grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’ s judgment.

Appellant’ s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this o pinion, send a

copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise h im 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 review of this case by th e Texas Cour t of Criminal Appeals, he

must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discret ionary review on his behalf or file a

petition for discretionary review pro se

. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with

Texas Court of Crim inal Appeals within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the

last timely motion for rehear ing that was overruled by this C ourt. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2 ;
68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered June 15, 2016

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

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 Appellant’s counse l states that he provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no

pro se brief.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRIC T OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 15 , 2016

NO. 12

- 15

- 00009

- CR

JOE LYNN PITTMAN, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 1053

- 14)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate recor d 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 de cision be certified to the court

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

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

.