## 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 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPI

NION

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.

B ACKGROUND

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 th e 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. Thi s appeal followed.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 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 c onsidered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the

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

C ONCLUSION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App.

1991), Appellant’s counsel ha s 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 f

rivolous. 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 ad vise 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 these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he

must either retain an attor ney 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 ti mely 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 discretionary review should c omply 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 facili tate 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 th e 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

.