## NO. 12

- 18

- 00250

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

VENSON TODD TUCKER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Venson Todd Tucker appeals from his conviction for assault

- family violence by impeding
breath or circulation. 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. S tate , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1969). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with assault

- family violence by impeding breath or
circulation. Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the charge without an agreement as to punishment.

Foll owing evidence and argument, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” and sentenced him to
ten years confinement. 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 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 further relates th at 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. [Panel2

Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of 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. 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 and finding no reversible error, Appellant’ s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
hereby granted and the appeal is affirmed

. 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 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 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 discretionary review pro se. Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion

or the dat e that 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.3d at

408 n.22.
Opinion delivered April 10 , 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State , Appellant’ s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of the motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took

concrete m easures to facilitate Appellant’ s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appe llant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been fi led.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 10 , 2019

NO. 12

- 18

- 00250

- CR

VENSON TODD TUCKER,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007

- 0480

- 18)

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, ADJUDGE D 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.