## NO S

. 12

- 22

- 00317

- CR 12

- 22

- 0031 8

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

T

OMMIE WAYNE DAVIS, JR. , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 114TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUN TY, 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 a ffirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by separate indictment s with accident involving injury and tampering with physical evidence

. Pursuant to plea bargains, Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged in each cause. For each offense, t he trial court de ferr ed finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for five years. Subsequently, the State filed motion s to r evoke Appella nt’s community supervision and to adjudicate his guilt in each case , alleging that Appellant violated cer tain terms and conditions thereof. Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of his community supervision
, in pertinent par t as follows: (1) he failed to report and submit to a random urinalysis

on multiple occasions ; (2) he fail ed s atisfactorily to perform community service restitution as ordered for multiple months ; and (3) he failed to pay the ordered amount of court cos ts a nd fees2 for multiple months

. A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion s , 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 req ues t that the trial court allow him to remain on community supervision. At the conclusion of the hearing, th e tr ial court found that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in each of the State’s motion s

. T hereaft e r, it revoked Appellant’s community supervision in each cause , adjudicated him “guilty” of accident i nvol ving injury and tampering with physical evidence , and sentenced him to imprisonment for five years and ten years respectively . This appeal fol lowed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Ande rs v . California and Gainous v.

State . Appellant’s counsel states that s he 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. Sh e furt her relates that s he is well

- acquainted with the facts in this case. In compliance with Anders
, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Te x. Crim

. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural histor y of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to ra ise any arguable issues for appeal. 1 We likewise have reviewed the recor d for r e versible error and found none.

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

counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See als o In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. procee ding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible er ror, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave

to withdraw and affi rm the trial court’s judgment. As a result of our disposition of this cas e, Appe l lant’s counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinio n an d 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 mo tion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to fac ilitate Appellant’s review of the appella te record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellan t was g iv en 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 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 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal s, h e 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 opin ion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretiona ry revi e w must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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.2 2. Opi ni on deliver ed July 31 , 2023.
P anel consisted of Worthe n , C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JU LY 31 , 20 23

NO. 12

- 22

- 00317

- CR

TOMMIE WAYNE DAVIS, JR. , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 114 th D istr ict Court

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

- 0796

- 20 )
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed

he rein, a nd the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is ther efor e OR DERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment

of the court below be in all things affirmed
, for which execution may issue, and t hat t hi s
decision be certif ied to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J ., H oyle , J. and Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31 , 2023

NO. 12

- 22

- 00 31 8

- C R

TOMMIE WAYNE DAVIS, JR. , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Sm ith Coun ty, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 07 30

- 2 1 )
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same bei ng cons id ered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECR EED that the judgment

of the court below be in all things affirmed
, for which execution may issue, and that this

decision be c er tif ie d to the court below for observance.

B y per curiam opinion

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