## NO. 12

- 19

- 00366

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

STEVEN DESHON GARNE R , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPI NION
PER CURIAM
Steven Deshon Garner appeals from his conviction for driving while intoxicated , third or

more . A ppellant’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 wit h d riving while intoxicated , third or more . The

indictment also included allegations Appellant had two prior subsequent felony convictions

pursua nt 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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. §§ 12.42(d) (West 2019) , 49.04(a), 49.09(b) (West Supp. 2019 ).2 A NALYSIS P URSUAN T T O A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA
Appellant’ s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.

State

. Appellant’ s counsel s tates that s he diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the

opinion that the record reflects no reversi bl e error and that there is no error upon which an appeal

can be predicated. Sh e further relates that s 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.] 197 8), 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 h a ve found none.

C ONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (T ex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’ s

counsel moved for leave to wi thdraw. See also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the mo tion for consideration with the merits.

Having done so and finding no revers ible error, Appellant’s counsel’ s motion for leave to

withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is affirmed

. As a result of our disp osition 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 fi le 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

d iscretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. Any

petition for dis c retionary 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 C ourt. See T EX

.
R. A PP

. P

. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed w ith t he 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.

2 In compliance with Kelly v. State , Appellant’ s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of h er motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right t o file a pro se response, and took concrete m easures 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 gi ven time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a bri ef has expired

, and no pro se brief has been filed.3 Opinion delivered September 9

, 2020

. Pan el 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

STE VEN D ESHON GARNER , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court

of Smith Coun ty, 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 i s the opinion of this court that there was no error in the

judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DEC REED that the judgment of

the cou rt below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below

for observance.

By pe r cur iam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.