NO. 12-09-00173-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WILLIE RAY WILSON, ' APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Willie Ray Wilson appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated with a child 

passenger. Appellant’s counsel has 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 dismiss the appeal. 

BACKGROUND

Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated with a child 

passenger.1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Appellant to confinement for 

two years. The trial court suspended Appellant’s sentence and placed him on community 

supervision for three years. In March 2009, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s 

suspended sentence. In its application, the State alleged that Appellant possessed or used cocaine 

in violation of the terms of his community supervision. A hearing was held, and Appellant 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.045 (Vernon Supp. 2009). 
2

refused to enter a plea. The State showed that evidence of cocaine use had been found in a sample 

of Appellant’s urine. The trial court found Appellant to be in violation of the terms of his 

community supervision, revoked his suspended sentence, and assessed a sentence of confinement 

for twenty-one months and a fine of five hundred dollars. This appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel 

states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the 

facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1978), counsel=s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural 

history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for 

appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 

109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have likewise reviewed the record for 

reversible error and have found none.

CONCLUSION

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 we 

dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408B09 (“After the completion of these 

four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the 

attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be 

plausible grounds for appeal.”).

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 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 Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for 
3

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 this court, after which it will be forwarded to 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R.

APP. 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered June 30, 2010.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)