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 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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.

BACKGROUND

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 used 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. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance 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. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological procedural 

history of the case and a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no
2

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. App. 2005). Accordingly, we 

conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous.

CONCLUSION

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 (Tex.

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

Should Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he 

must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary 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 Criminal Appeals within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the 

last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. 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)

 

1Appellant’s counsel 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 DISTRICT 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 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.