## NO S

. 12

- 20

- 00270

- CR 12

- 2 0

- 00271

- CR 12

- 2 0

- 00272

- CR 12

- 21

- 00273

- CR

IN THE COURT OF A PPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT HOWARD SPAIN , JR. , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPE AL S FROM THE 294TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

VAN ZANDT COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORAN D UM OPINION PER CURIAM
Robert How ard Spain, Jr. appeals his convictions for possession of child pornography. Appellant ’ s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. Cal ifornia , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (T ex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant filed a pro se response. We affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment in four separate cases with possessi on of child pornography. The State filed a notice of punishment enhancement in each case. Appellant pl eaded “ not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Appellant “guilty,” and Appellant was sentenced to twenty years imprisonme nt and a $10,000 fine in each case. Appellant appealed, and we remanded the case for a new trial on pun ishment

. 1 On remand, Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement allegations. At the conclusion of the new trial, the

1 Spain v. State , No s . 12

- 18

- 00257

- 260

- CR, 2019 WL 5656498 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Oct. 31, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.)

.2 jury sentenced Appellant to twen ty years imprisonment in each case and no fine. The State moved to cumulate or “stack” his sentences, which th e trial court granted. These appeals
followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant ’ s counsel filed a brief in compliance with A nders v. California and Gainous v.
State . Appellant ’ s counsel relates that he reviewed the record and found no arguable grounds for appeal. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant ’ s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advance d. Appell ant contends in his pro se response that his jury was not impartial. 2 Specifically,
h e urges the trial court failed to grant a challenge for cau se and three partial jurors were empaneled. He further argues that his trial counsel was ineffective

. When fa ced with an Anders brief and a pro se response by an appellant, an appellate court can either (1) determine that the appeal is wholly frivolous a nd issue an opinion explaining that it has reviewed the record and finds no reversible error or (2) d etermine t hat arguable grounds for appeal exist and remand the cause to the trial court so that new counsel may be appointed to brief the issues. Bledsoe v . State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION After conducting an independent ex amination of the record, we find no reversible error and conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See id

. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court. As required by Anders and Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant ’ s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried th e motion for
consideration with the merits and now grant counsel ’ s motion for leave to withdraw.

2 In compliance wi th Kelly v. State , Appellant ’ s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of h is motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to f ile a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant ’ s rev ie w of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).3 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 ju dgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary re view. 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 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 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2. Any pe tition 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 discretiona ry review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4

. See In re Schulman , 25 2 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered January 26, 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

JU DGMENT

JANUARY 26 , 2022

NO. 12

- 20

- 00270

- CR

ROBERT HOWARD SPAIN, JR. , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 294 t h District Court
of Van Zandt County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR16

- 00440 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief s 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 t he 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

JU DGMENT

JANUARY 26 , 2022

NO. 12

- 20

- 0027 1

- CR

ROBERT HOWARD SPAIN, JR. , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 294th District Court
of Van Zandt County, Texas (Tr

. Ct.No. CR16

- 0044 1 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief s filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this c ourt 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.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS D ISTRICT OF TEXAS

JU DGMENT

JANUARY 26 , 2022

NO. 12

- 20

- 0027 2

- CR

ROBERT HOWARD SPAIN, JR. , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 294th Dist rict Court
of Van Zandt County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR16

- 0044 2 )

THIS CAUSE came to be heard o n the appellate record and brief s filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is theref ore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things aff i rmed , 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.

## C OURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JU DGMENT

JANUARY 26 , 2022

N O. 12

- 20

- 0027 3

- CR

ROBERT HOWARD SPAIN, JR. , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

Appeal from the 294th District Court
of Van Zandt County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. CR16

- 0044 3 ) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief s filed herein, a n d 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.