NO. 12-09-00149-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAMES EDWARD TALLEY,

APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

James Edward Talley appeals his conviction for violation of bond in a family 

violence case. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief asserting 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. 

BACKGROUND

Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of violation of bond in a family violence 

case with two or more previous convictions.1 The trial court placed him on deferred 

adjudication community supervision in July 2008. Appellant apparently travelled to 

California following his plea with the intent that his community supervision would be 

administered in that state. The State of California declined to supervise Appellant, but 

Appellant did not return to Texas. In April 2009, the State filed an application to revoke 

Appellant’s suspended sentence, alleging that he had failed to report and failed to pay 

fees as ordered. A hearing was held in April, and Appellant pleaded true to several of the 

allegations. Following that hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 25.07(g) (Vernon Supp. 2009).
2

him to imprisonment for two years and a fine of one thousand dollars. This appeal 

followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. 

Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well 

acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. 

State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel=s brief presents a thorough 

chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that 

counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 

87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. 

Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have 

found none.

CONCLUSION

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, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with 

Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for 

leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 

252 S.W.3d at 408B09 (“After the completion of these four steps, the court of appeals 

will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the attorney=s motion to 

withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be plausible grounds 

for appeal.”).

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

408 n.22. 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed 
3

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 TEX. R. APP. 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

408 n.22.

Opinion delivered June 30, 2010.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)