## NO. 12

- 09

- 00 1 09

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DARNESS HAROLD HAMILTON , § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Darness Harold Hamilton appeals h is conviction for burglary of a habitation

. Appellant pleaded guilty to that offense and true to the two enhancement paragraphs in the indictment. The trial court assessed punishment at forty years of imprison ment. Appellant’s counsel filed a
motion to withdraw and a bri ef in support of that motion 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 dismiss Appellant’s appeal.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFOR NIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating that he
is well acquainted with the facts in this case and has diligently reviewed the appellate record. In compliance with Anders
, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2 d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant’s counsel is of the opinion that the record reflect s no reversible error
and counsel is unable to ra ise any arguable issues for appeal. We have considered counsel’s
bri ef and conducted our own independent review of the record. We have found no reversible2

error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s couns el that the appeal
is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion to withdraw is hereby granted , and we dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408

- 09. 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 further review of th is case by the Texas Court of C riminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion 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 this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals alo ng with the rest of the filings in the case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered May 5 , 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)