## NO. 12-08-00020-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTR ICT

TYLER, TEXA S
JAI MAR DESEAN

SMI TH , § APP EAL FRO

M T HE APPELLANT V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF TH E ST ATEOFTEX

AS, APP ELL EE § NA CO GD OC HES CO UN TY

, T EXAS MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION PER CU RIAM Jaimar De sean Smith appea ls his conviction for misdemeanor driving while intoxicated, for wh ic h h e wa s se nte nc e d to c on fi ne me nt f or on e hu nd re d e igh ty d a ys , p ro bate d for six te e n mo nth s. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in c ompliance with Ande rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U. S. 738 , 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L . Ed. 2d 493 (1967) a nd Ga ino us v

. St ate , 4 3 6 S. W. 2 d 1 3 7 ( T e x. Cr im
. Ap p . 1 9 6 9 )
. We a ff ir m. B ACKG ROUND Appellant wa s char g ed with misdemeanor driving while intox icated a nd pleade d “not g uilty .” The matter proc eede d to a jury trial. Ultimately , the jury fo u n d Ap p el lant “guilty ” as c ha rg e d. Th e re a ft e r, the tr ia l court se nte nc e d App e lla nt to c on fi ne me nt f

or on e hund re d e ig hty da y s, but probated A

ppell an t ’s s entenc e and pla ced A ppellant on community

supervision for sixteen months. The trial court f urther imposed on A

ppellant a f

ine of one thousand five hundred dollar s and orde red that Appellant pay court c osts of three hundr ed thi rt y -n i n e dollars. This appea l followed.
A N A LY SI S P URS UANT T O A N D ER S V . C A L IFO R N

IAC o u n se l f o r A p p e llan t ce rtifi e d in h is m o tio n to w ithd ra w tha t he p ro v id e d A p p e llan t with a c o p y o f t h is 1 b ri ef
. A p p el l ant was gi ven t i m e t o f i l e hi s o wn b ri ef

i n t hi s cause. T he t i m e f o r f i l i ng s uch a b ri ef

has exp i red and w e ha v e re c e ive d no p ro se b rie f. 2 Appellant’s c ounsel filed a br ief in complianc e with Ande rs v . Califo rnia and Gainous v. Sta te . Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently revie wed the appellate rec ord and is of the opinion that the rec ord re flec ts no rever sible err or and that there is no err or upon which an appe al c anb e p r e d i c at e d
. H e f

urth e r r e l at e s th a th e i s w e l l a c qu a i n t e d w i t h t h e f a c t s i nth i s c a s e . In compliance with Ande rs , Ga ino us , and Hig h v . St ate , 573 S.W .2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 19 78 ), Ap pe lla

nt’ s b ri e f p re se nts a

c hr on olo g ica l summatio n o f t he pr oc e dura l hi sto ry

of the c a se an d f urth e r s tate s th at A

p p e ll an t’ s c o un s e l i s un a

b le to r a is e an y

ar g u a b le is s ues f

o r a p p e a l. We

1 have likew ise revie wed the r ecor d for r ever sible err or and ha ve found none
. C ONCL US I ON A s r e qu i r e d

b y Sta ff ord v . St ate , 813 S.W .2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 9 1 ), Ap p ell ant’s c ouns e l has mov e d for le ave to wit hd ra w. We ca rr ie d the mot ion fo r co ns ide ratio n with the me ri ts. Havingdone so and f

inding no r ever sible err or, Appellant’s counsel’s moti on for leave to withdraw i s h e r e b y granted a

nd the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt i s affirm ed
. Opinion delivere d September 24, 2008. P an elconsi s t ed of

W ort hen, C. J. , G r i

f f i t h, J. , and H oyl e, J.

(DO N OT PUBL I SH)