## NO. 12

- 19

- 00153

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KARL LYNN SHACKELFOR D,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Karl Lynn Shackelford appeals from his conviction for criminal trespass. 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 information with criminal trespass. Appellant, appearing pro se,

pleaded “not guilty” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. During trial, the jury heard evidence

that Appellant was told to leave the Tyler Police Department on August 21, 2018, after yelling and

cursing at employees working the front window. Sergeant Wendell Gardner testified that he told

Appellant that he would be arrested for criminal trespass if he returned. Sergeant Gardner further

testified that he was dispatched to a disturbance call in the lobby of the Tyler Police Department

on September 11, 2018, and Appellant was in the lobby when the sergeant arrived. Sergeant

Gardner testified that App ellant would not have been criminally trespassing if he had been at the

Tyler Police Department regarding an emergency. However, that was not the case. Following

evidence and argument, the jury found Appellant “guilty” of criminal trespass. After the

se ntencing portion of the trial, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 180 days confinement. This

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 states that he 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. He further relates that he is well acquainte d 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 App ellant’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 ONCLUSION

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

counsel mo ved 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 l eave 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 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 fi le 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 m otion for rehearing is 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

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 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 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 the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at

408 n.22.

Opinion delivered March 4 , 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

MARCH 4 , 2020

NO. 12

- 19

- 00153

- CR

KARL LYNN SHACKELFOR D, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 003

- 83674

- 18)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed

herein, and th e 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.