## NO S . 12

- 18

- 00134

- CR 12

- 18

- 00135

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JERRY LYNN CLAYTON, JR., APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 241ST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Jerry Lynn Clayton, Jr., appeals following his convictions for delivery of a controlled
substance. 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 Appellant was indicted in two separate cases for delivery of a controlled substance. Each
indictment included an enhancement paragraph regarding a prior felony conviction. The cases

were later co nsolidated. Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement paragraph and “guilty” to
each charge without an agreement on punishment. Following evidence and argument, the trial
court found Appellant “guilty” of both charges and sentenced him to thirty

- five y ears confinement
for each charge to run concurrently. Th e s e appeal s followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

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

State

. Appellant’s counsel states that he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the2

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal
can be predicated. He further relates that he 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 Appe llant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 1

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

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

counsel mov ed 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, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for l eave to withdraw is
hereby granted and the judgments are affirmed

. 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
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 th e s e case s 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 thi rty 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 petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See T EX

. R. A P P

. 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 March 20 , 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State , Appellant’ s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of the motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took

concrete m easures to facilitate Appellant’ s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appe llant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 20 , 2019

NO. 12

- 18

- 00134

- CR

JERRY LYNN CLAYTON, JR.,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241

- 0932

- 17)

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.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 20 , 2019

NO. 12

- 18

- 0013 5

- CR

JERRY LYNN CLAYTON, JR.,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241

- 0930

- 17)

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, ADJUDGE D 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.