## NO. 12

- 1 2

- 00 1 94

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BENJAMIN GEORGE

, § APPEAL FROM THE 402ND APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Benjamin George appeals his conviction for sexual assault, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. 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 Ga inous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with sexual assault and pleaded “not guilty.” The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant “guilty” as charge d. Following a trial on punishment, the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for twenty years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal 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 has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the2

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that the re 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 Appellant’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 ONCLU SION As required by Stafford v. State

, 813 S.W.2d 503 (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 considera tion with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed

. As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s counsel has a d uty 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 this case 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 petitio n for discretionary review must be filed within thirty 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 PP

. 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 July 31

, 2013. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Counsel for Appellant certified in his brief that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. 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

JULY 31 , 201 3

NO. 12

- 12

- 00 1 94

- CR

BENJAMIN GEORGE , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 402 nd Judicial District Court

of Wood County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 21,486

- 2011 )

TH I S CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there w as no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant ’ s counsel ’s motion to withdraw is granted

, the judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed , and that this decis ion be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.