NO. 12-12-00011-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

COREY DARNELL WEBB, § APPEALS FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Corey Darnell Webb appeals his conviction for aggravated assault of a public servant, for 

which he was sentenced to imprisonment for fifty years. He further challenges the trial court’s 

denial of his amended motion to withdraw his guilty plea as well as the juvenile court’s order 

transferring the matter to district court. 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

Following a discretionary transfer of this matter from juvenile court,1 Appellant was charged 

by indictment with aggravated assault of a public servant and pleaded “not guilty.” The matter 

proceeded to a jury trial. During trial, Appellant elected to change his plea to “guilty.” The trial 

court admonished Appellant, took his plea of guilty under advisement, and ordered a presentence 

 

1 Appellant was a juvenile when the facts giving rise to this case occurred. On August 26, 2010, the juvenile 

court entered an order of discretionary transfer to the district court and, further, ordered that Appellant be “dealt with as an 

adult.”
2

investigation report. Thereafter, Appellant moved to withdraw his “guilty” plea. The trial court 

denied Appellant’s motion. Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and 

sentenced him to imprisonment for fifty years. This appeal followed. 

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.2 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 

 

2

Counsel for Appellant certified in his brief 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

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 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 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

JULY 3, 2013

NO. 12-12-00011-CR

COREY DARNELL WEBB,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

 

 Appeal from the 7th Judicial District Court

 of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1350-10)

 

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.