NOS. 12-22-00317-CR

12-22-00318-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TOMMIE WAYNE DAVIS, JR., 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Tommie Wayne Davis, Jr. appeals following the revocation of his deferred adjudication 

community supervision in two separate causes. 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

Appellant was charged by separate indictments with accident involving injury and 

tampering with physical evidence. Pursuant to plea bargains, Appellant pleaded “guilty” as 

charged in each cause. For each offense, the trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and 

placed him on community supervision for five years. 

Subsequently, the State filed motions to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and 

to adjudicate his guilt in each case, alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions 

thereof. Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of his community 

supervision, in pertinent part as follows: (1) he failed to report and submit to a random urinalysis 

on multiple occasions; (2) he failed satisfactorily to perform community service restitution as 

ordered for multiple months; and (3) he failed to pay the ordered amount of court costs and fees
2

for multiple months.

A hearing was conducted on the State’s motions, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to the 

violations alleged therein. The State declined to put on evidence. Appellant presented evidence 

from witnesses in support of his request that the trial court allow him to remain on community 

supervision. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the 

terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in each of the State’s motions. 

Thereafter, it revoked Appellant’s community supervision in each cause, adjudicated him 

“guilty” of accident involving injury and tampering with physical evidence, and sentenced him to 

imprisonment for five years and ten years respectively. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the 

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. She further relates that she is well-acquainted 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 further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for 

appeal.1

 We likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. 

Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave 

to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

As a result of our disposition of this case, 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 

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, 

notified Appellant of her 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 appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief

expired and no pro se brief has been filed.
3

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 he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any 

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this 

opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 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 July 31, 2023.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31, 2023

NO. 12-22-00317-CR

TOMMIE WAYNE DAVIS, JR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0796-20)

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, for which execution may issue, 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. 
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31, 2023

NO. 12-22-00318-CR

TOMMIE WAYNE DAVIS, JR.,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0730-21)

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, for which execution may issue, 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.