NO. 12-16-00196-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAMES LEON BOSWELL, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

James Leon Boswell appeals his conviction for felony theft. 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 indictment with theft of property valued at $20,000 or more 

but less than $100,000 from an elderly individual. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement with the 

State, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense, and the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and 

placed him on community supervision for a term of ten years. 

Subsequently, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication. Appellant 

pleaded “true” to the allegations in the motion. After giving both parties an opportunity to 

present evidence and arguments, the trial court found Appellant guilty, revoked his community 

supervision, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for fifteen years and restitution of 

$64,345. This appeal followed. 
2

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 relates that he has reviewed the record and found no reversible error 

or jurisdictional defects. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. 

App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record 

demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.1

We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the 

record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error. 

CONCLUSION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (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). We carried the motion for 

consideration with the merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and 

affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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 these cases 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 pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed 

within thirty days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for 

rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). 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 Rule 

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

 

1

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

notified Appellant of his 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. 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 has expired and 

no pro se brief has been filed. 
3

Opinion delivered August 9, 2017.

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

AUGUST 9, 2017

NO. 12-16-00196-CR

JAMES LEON BOSWELL,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0952-15)

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.