NO. 12-21-00196-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JUAN FRANCISCO ROMO,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 392ND 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Juan Francisco Romo appeals from his conviction for 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.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of possession of a controlled 

substance, methamphetamine, in an amount of four grams or more but less than two hundred 

grams.1 The indictment also included enhancement paragraphs for two previous felonies in 1999 

and 2013 for possession of marijuana and driving while intoxicated, third or more. Appellant 

pleaded “not guilty.” However, Appellant and the State agreed that if Appellant were found 

guilty, a twenty-five-year sentence would be imposed. The matter then proceeded to a jury trial. 

The evidence at trial showed that Appellant was found asleep in his vehicle in the parking lot of 

a post office in Poyner, Texas. Cliff Arnold, a Henderson County Sheriff’s Office deputy, 

testified that he responded to a call for a welfare check when he found Appellant. Glass smoking 

1 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (d) (West Supp. 2021).
2

pipes were in the cup holder of the console in plain view. Deputy Arnold detained Appellant and 

searched the vehicle. He found a black container with a green leafy substance believed to be 

marijuana and a bluish-white substance, which was later confirmed to be 5.88 grams of 

methamphetamine. At the conclusion of trial, the jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged, and 

the trial court sentenced him to twenty-five years imprisonment. 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 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 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 appeal 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 

2 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 facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 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.
3

petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this 

opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is 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 May 31, 2022.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 31, 2022

NO. 12-21-00196-CR

JUAN FRANCISCO ROMO,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 392nd District Court

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR20-0510-173)

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.