NO. 12-12-00389-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL LEE MITCHELL, II, § APPEAL FROM THE 159TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Michael Lee Mitchell, II appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated, third offense 

or more, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for twelve years. 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.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated, third offense or more. 

The indictment further alleged that Appellant had been previously convicted of intoxication 

assault. Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged and “true” to the enhancement allegation in the 

indictment. The matter proceeded to a bench trial on punishment. Ultimately, the trial court 

found Appellant “guilty” as charged, found the enhancement paragraph to be “true,” and assessed 

his punishment at imprisonment for twelve years. This appeal followed.
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 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 predicated. 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 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.

CONCLUSION

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. 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 trial court’s judgment 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 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 petition for discretionary review pro se. 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 TEX. R. APP.

P. 68.2. 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

 

1 Counsel for Appellant set forth in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of the 

brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no 

pro se brief has been filed.
3

408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 31, 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

JULY 31, 2013

NO. 12-12-00389-CR

MICHAEL LEE MITCHELL, II,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

 Appeal from the 159th Judicial District Court

 of Angelina County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 2011-0593)

 

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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 Appellant’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, 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., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.