## NO. 12

- 18

- 00037

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DARRYL WAYNE LEWIS, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 369T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT CO URT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEX AS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Darryl Wayne Lewis appeals following his conviction for possession of a controlled
substance with intent to deliver . 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 indictment wi th possession of a controlled substance, with intent to deliver, in a drug

- free zone. Appellant pleaded “not guilty.” The jury found Appellant “guilty” of possession with intent to deliver. Appellant then agreed to waive his right to appeal the jury’s

g uilt finding in exchange for the State’s abandoning the drug

- free zone allegation and another possession charge. The jury, after finding the enhancement paragraphs regarding prior felony
convictions “true,” sentenced Appellant to ninety

- nine years impriso nment. 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 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 appeal2

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 ONCLUSION 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. Ap p. 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 dispo sition 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; I n 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 dis cretionary review pro se. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion
or the date the last timely motion for rehearing 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 April 10 , 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State , Appellant’ s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of the 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 a ppellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appe llant 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.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 10 , 2019

NO. 12

- 18

- 00037

- CR

DARRYL WAYNE LEWIS,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 369th District Court of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 369CR

- 15

- 32355)

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.