NO. 12-19-00366-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

STEVEN DESHON GARNER, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 7TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Steven Deshon Garner appeals from his conviction for driving while intoxicated, third or 

more. 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 driving while intoxicated, third or more. The 

indictment also included allegations Appellant had two prior subsequent felony convictions 

pursuant to the habitual offender statute.1 Pursuant to an open plea, Appellant pleaded “guilty” 

to the charge in the indictment and “true” to the enhancement paragraphs. The matter proceeded 

to the trial court for sentencing. Following a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced 

Appellant to forty-five years imprisonment. This appeal followed.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.42(d) (West 2019), 49.04(a), 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2019).
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 states that she diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the 

opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal 

can be predicated. She further relates that she 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.2 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s 

counsel 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 and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is affirmed.

As a result of our disposition of this case, 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 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 

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this 

opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this Court. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 68.2. 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. 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 her 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. See Kelly v. State, 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 September 9, 2020.

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

SEPTEMBER 9, 2020

NO. 12-19-00366-CR

STEVEN DESHON GARNER,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0768-19)

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.