## NO. 12

- 16

- 00015

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GERALD RAY MCHAM, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 241S T

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINI ON PER CURIAM Gerald Ray McHam appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 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 with aggravated sexual assault of a child and pleaded “guilty.” The matter proceeded to a bench trial on puni shment. Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for life. 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 has 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 fur ther 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.2

[Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history o f 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. C rim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel has moved 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 reversib le error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 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 o pinion 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 A ppeals, he must either retain an attorney to file 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 last timely motion for rehearing that 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 September 14, 2016

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

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 Counsel for Appellant certified in hi s brief that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 14 , 2016

NO. 12

- 16

- 00015

- CR

GERALD RAY MCHAM, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct. No. 241

- 0469

- 15) 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 judg ment 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.