## NO. 12

- 1 2

- 00 011

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

COREY DARNELL WEBB , § APPEAL S FROM THE 7 TH 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 t he 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. 196 9). We affirm.

B ACKGROUND 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 order ed 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.

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 has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the
opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that the re 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.

C ONCLU SION 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 c ourt’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 f

or 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 r eview 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 cau se. 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 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 Appel late 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 , 201 3

NO. 12

- 12

- 00 011

- CR

COREY DARNELL WEBB ,

Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 7 th Judicial District Court

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

- 1350

- 1 0 )

TH I S 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 w as n o 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.