## 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

MEMORANDU M 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.

B ACKGROUND 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 inclu ded enhancement paragraphs for two previous felonies in 1999 and 2013 for possession of mar ijuana and driving while intoxicated, third or more. Appellant pleaded “not guilty.” However, Appellant and the State agreed that if Appellan t were found guilty, a twenty

- five

- year sentence would be imposed. The matter then proceeded to a jury trial.
T he 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 Sh eriff’s Office deputy, testified that he responded to a call for a welfare check when he fo und Appellant. Glass smoking

1 T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115(a), (d) (We st Su pp. 2021 )

.2 pipes were in the cup holder of the console in plain view. Deputy Arnold detained Appellant and
searched the veh icle. He found a blac k container with a green leafy substance believed to be marijuana and a bluish

- white substa nce, 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 se ntenced him to twenty

- five years imprisonment. 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 state s that he diligently re viewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible e rror 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 ca se. In compliance with Anders , Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), App ellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable t o raise any arguable is sues for appeal. 2 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have foun d none.

C ONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. S ee 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 gra nted and t he 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 petiti on for dis cretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.4; In re
Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant w ish 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 A ppellant of h is motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete m ea sures to facilitate Appellant’ s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A ppellant 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 r eview must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is overr uled by th is 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 A ppell ate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered May 31 , 2022. Panel con sisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

J UDGMENT

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

- 05 10

- 17 3 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brie f filed herein, and the same being considered, i t is the opin ion of this court that there was no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the c our t below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below
for observance. By per curiam o pinion

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