## 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 145T H

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.

B ACKGROUND

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 S tate’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 T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 12.42(d) (West Supp.
2018).2 A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA

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

C ONCLUSION

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 m otion 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 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 th i s 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 di scretionary 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2(a). 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 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 wi th 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 rev iew 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 deli vered 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.