NO. 12-09-00109-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 his 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 imprisonment. Appellant’s counsel filed a 

motion to withdraw and a brief 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.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

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.2d 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 reflects no reversible error 

and counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have considered counsel’s 

brief and conducted our own independent review of the record. We have found no reversible 
2

error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

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 counsel 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant 

wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal 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 TEX. R. APP. 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 along with the rest 

of the filings in the case. See TEX. R. APP. 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 TEX.

R. APP. 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)