## NO. 12

- 21

- 00237

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALEJANDRO GALVAN

, A PPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURI AM

Alejandro Galvan appeals his conviction for failure to identify

. Appellant’s counsel filed

a brief in compli ance 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. 19 69). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by in formation with failure to identify by giving a false or

f ictitious name

. 1 H e pleaded “ not guilty

, ” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.

At trial, the evidence showed that a Tyler barber shop ow ner called 911 and report ed that

Appellant was intoxicated and sleeping in a chair on the shop’s premises

. When Tyler Police

Department Officer Charles Johnson responded to the call

, he wakened Appellant and requested

his name

. App ellant repeatedly told Johnson that his name was Alejandro Robo. Subsequent

investigation revealed his name wa s Alejandro Galvan.

Ulti mately, the jury found Appellant “guilty

, ” and the trial court senten ced him to an

agreed punishment of confinement for 180 days

. This appeal followed.

1 A Class B misdemeanor

. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 38.02 ( b ), ( c ) (2) ( Wes t 2016 )

.2 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 relates tha t s he has reviewed the record and determined it contains no

reversible erro r or jurisdictional defect

. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 81 2

(Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1 978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the

recor d demonstrating why ther e are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 2

W e co nducted a n independent review of the record in this case and found no reversible

error

. See i d. We conclude tha t the appeal is wholly frivolous

. See i d.

C ONCLUSION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. St a te , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 ( T ex

. Crim. App.

199 1), 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). We carried the motion for

consideration with the merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel t hat the

appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdra w an d

affirm the trial court’s judgment

. Appellant’s counsel has a duty to , w ithin five days of the date of this opinion, send a

copy of the opinion and judgme nt to Appellant and advise h im of h is right to file a petition fo r

discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48. 4; In re Schulman

, 252 S.W.3 d at 411 n .35. Should

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

e ither retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on h is behalf or he must file a

pro se petit ion for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed

within thirty days f ro m either the date of this opinion or t he da t e that the last timely motion for

rehearing was overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2( a)

. Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P. 68. 3 ( a). Any petition for disc retionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule

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

2 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 h is right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Ap pellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State

, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given t ime to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and no pro se brief was filed.3 Opinion delivered Dec ember 7 , 2022.

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

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COUR T OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DEC EMBER 7 , 2022

NO. 12

- 21

- 00237

- CR

ALEJANDRO GALVAN

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEX AS

, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 001

- 80110

- 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 cou rt below be in all things aff irmed , 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.