NO. 12-17-00372-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

GREGORY DONELL PORTER, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 145TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Gregory Donell Porter appeals his conviction for tampering with evidence for which he 

was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty five years. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief asserting 

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.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with tampering with evidence. He pleaded “not 

guilty” and the case proceeded to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found 

Appellant “guilty” of the charged offense. Appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s enhancement 

allegations, and the jury sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for twenty five years.1 This appeal 

followed.

 

1 The State alleged that Appellant had two previous, sequential felony convictions, elevating the punishment 

range to twenty five to ninety nine years or life imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 

2018). 
2

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel relates that he diligently reviewed and evaluated the appellate record 

and found no error for our review. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. 

Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief contains a thorough professional evaluation of the 

record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.2

We considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record. 

Id. at 811. We found no reversible error.

CONCLUSION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (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. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the 

merits. Having done so, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. We affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

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 TEX. R. APP. 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 file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf 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 court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was 

overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must 

be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for 

discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

 

2

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 measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. 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

Opinion delivered December 21, 2018.

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

DECEMBER 21, 2018

NO. 12-17-00372-CR

GREGORY DONELL PORTER,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 145th District Court 

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1722779)

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.