## NO. 12

- 13

- 00363

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

CODY LAMONT BLAYLOCK , APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 114T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM O PINION PER CURIAM Cody Lamont Blaylock appeals his conviction for engaging in organized criminal activity. 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. Stat e , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was indicted for the first degree felony offense of engaging in organized criminal activity by committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon as a member of a criminal street g ang. 1 Appellant and the State entered a negotiated plea agreement for an agreed punishment of deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years in exchange for Appellant's “guilty” plea and pleas of “true” to the allegations that he used a deadly weapon and that he was a member of a criminal street gang at the time of the offense. In accordance with the agreement, the trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a ten year period in December 2010. The trial cour t also

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011), § 71.02(a)(1), (b) (West Supp. 2014).2

considered two additional charges in determining whether to place Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision. 2 The State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication in May 2012. Appellant pleaded “true” to most of the allega tions. After a hearing, the trial court denied the application. In October 2013, the State filed another application to proceed to final adjudication. The State twice amended its application. In the application, the State alleged that Appellant failed to abide by the terms of his community supervision in that he (1) committed the offense of criminal trespass, (2) failed to pay for urinalysis testing on numerous occasions, (3) failed to pay supervision fees and court costs, and (4) failed to obtain a GED a s ordered by the court. At the subsequent hearing, Appellant pleaded “true” to each paragraph in the application. The trial court adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, found him guilty of the offense
, and found that the allegations that he used a deadly weapon and was a member of street gang were true. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT T O A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in complianc e 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 pre dicated. He further 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. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the proc edural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised issues that his sentence was excessive
and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when he was advised to plead “guilty” and “true” to the State’s application to proceed to final adjudication, rendering the pleas involuntary.
We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State
, 178
S.W. 3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

2 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.45(a) (West 2011).3 C ONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. 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. pro ceeding). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted , and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2. As a result of our disposit ion of this case, 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 r e 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 petition for discre tionary review pro se. 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 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.3 d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered March 4, 2015. 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

MA RCH 4 , 2015

NO. 12

- 13

- 00363

- CR

CODY LAMONT BLAYLOCK ,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114

- 1070

- 10) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed
he rein, 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.