## NOS. 12

- 18

- 00097

- CR 12

- 18

- 00098

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JIMMY LYNN HAYES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEALS FROM THE 241 ST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT CO URT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Jimmy Lynn Hayes appeals his convictions for tampering with or fabricating physical evidence and possession of a controlled substance. 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.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment wit h tampering with or fabricating physical evidence enhanced by a prior felony and possession of a controlled substance enhanced by two prior state jail felonies. He pleaded “guilty.” After a hearing, the trial court assessed Appellant’s punishment at impr isonment for eleven years in the tampering with or fabricating physical evidence case and ten years in the possession of a controlled substance case. Th e s e appeal s followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s appellate counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and

Gainous v. State

. Appellant’s counsel relates that he reviewed the record and found no reversible error or jurisdictional defect. In compliance with High v. State , 57 3 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.2

[Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 1 We considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record.

Id. at 811. We found no reversible error.

C ONCLUSION As required by Anders and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel 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, we agree with counsel that the appeal s are wholly frivolous. Accordingly,

we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments. 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

discretiona ry 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 these cases by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his b ehalf 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 this court’s judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 68.2(a). 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 Rule 68.4 of the Texas Ru les of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered March 20 , 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State

, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitat e Appellant’s review of the appellate record. 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 20 , 2019

NO. 12

- 18

- 00097

- CR

JIMMY LYNN HAYES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241

- 0771

- 17)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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 t he 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., Hoyle, J. and, Neeley, J.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MARCH 20 , 2019

NO. 12

- 18

- 0009 8

- CR

JIMMY LYNN HAYES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241

- 0772

- 17)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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 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., Hoyle, J. and, Neeley, J.