## NO. 12

- 08

- 00467

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ANDREW ALAN BURT, ' APPEAL FROM THE 241ST APPELLANT

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OP

INION PER CURIAM Andrew Alan Burt appeals his conviction for theft. 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 dismiss the appeal.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by information with the offense of theft of the value of $1,500 or more but less than $20,000, a state jail felony. 1 Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense charged in the information. Appellan t and his counsel signed an agreed punishment recommendation, an acknowledgment of admonishments, a waiver of service and arraignment, a waiver of confrontation and agreement to stipulate, and a stipulation of evidence judicially confessing to
the offense alleged in the information. He also waived his time to file a motion for new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment, his right to appeal, and his right of trial by jury. The trial court accepted Appellant = s plea, deferred further proceedings without en tering an adjudication of guilt, and ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for three

1 See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. ' 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (Vernon 2003).2

years. 2 As a condition of his community supervision, Appellant was ordered to pay restitution in an amount to be determined. Ap proximately one month later, the trial court amended the conditions of Appellant’s community supervision, and ordered that Appellant pay restitution in the amount of $1,728.15. On October 8, 2008, the State filed a motion to adjudicate and revoke
communit y supervision, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded A true @ to the allegations contained in the State = s motion. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations in the State’s motion to be tr ue, granted the State’s motion to proceed to final adjudication, revoked his community supervision, and adjudged Appellant guilty of theft as charg ed in the information. The trial court assessed Appellant = s punishment at eighteen months in a state jail f acility, court costs, and restitution. 3 This appeal
followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant = s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the op inion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. From our review of Appellant = s brief, it is apparent that his counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this

case. In compliance with Anders
, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel = s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 4 We have
reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

2 See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 42.12, ' 5(a) (Vernon Supp. 200 9 ).

3 An individual adjudged guilty of a state jail felony shall be punished by confinement in state jail for any term of not more than two years or less than 180 days and, in addition, a fine not to exceed $10,000. T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. ' 12.35(a), (b) (Vernon 2003).

4 Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of counsel’s brief and that Appellant was given time to file hi s own brief in the case. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.3 C ONCLUSION
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 , 81 3 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant = s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous and his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted

. See In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408

- 09. Counsel has a duty to, within fiv e 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 s eek 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. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; In re Schulman , 2 5 2 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
We dismiss Appellant = s appeal.
Opinion delivered November 18 , 2009. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J

.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)