## NO. 12

- 12

- 00 17 9

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SHANE RYAN KIRKLAND , § APPEAL S FROM THE 114TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Shane Ryan Kirkland appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. 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 the offense of aggravated robbery, a first degree felony. 1 The indictment also alleged that Appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the

co mmission of or immediate flight from the offense. Appellant entered an “open” plea of guilty to the offense charged in the indictment. Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty plea, including a stipulation of evide nce in which Appellant swore, and judicially confessed, that all allegations pleaded in the indictment were true and correct. The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found that the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of Appellant’s guilt, defe rred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 29.03 (a), (b) (West 2011).2

ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years. 2 The trial court also ordered that Appellant pay court costs. Later, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication, alleging in thirteen paragraphs that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. Appellant and his attorney signed a written plea admonishment and stipulation of evidence, admitting as “true ” nine paragraphs of allegations in the State’s application. At the hearing on the application, the State abandoned three paragraphs of the allegations in its application. Appellant pleaded “true” to nine paragraphs of the allegations contained in the St ate’s application. However, he pleaded “not true” to paragraph nine. After a hearing, the trial court found it “true” that Appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision, granted the State’s application, made an affirmative deadly weapon finding, and adjudged Appellant guilty as charged in the indictment. The trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at life imprisonment and court costs. 3 This appeal
followed.

A NALYSIS PURSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating 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. From our review of Appellant’s brief, it is apparent that his counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this

case. In compliance with Anders
, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronologi cal summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have
reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. 4 See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Te x. Crim. App. 2005).

2 See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 42.12, § 5(a) (West Supp. 201 2 ).

3 An individual adjudged guilty of a first degree felony shall be punished by imprisonment for life or for any term of not more than ninety

- nine years or less than five years and, in addition, a fine not to exceed $10,000. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.32 (Wes t 2011).

4 Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has exp ired and we have received no pro se brief.3 C ONCLUSION 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 for leave to withdraw is hereby granted , and th e trial court’s judgment is affirmed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2. 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 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. See In re Sc hulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. 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

. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered April 3, 2013

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)4 

### COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 3 , 201 3

NO. 12

- 12

- 00 17 9

- CR

SHANE RYAN KIRKLAND ,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

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

- 1398

- 09)

TH I S CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and b riefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there w as no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant ’ s counsel ’s motion to withdraw is granted
, the judgment of the court be low 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., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.