### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00611- CR

Doyle John Garr ettaka Doyal John Gar ret t, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F LAMP ASAS CO UNTY, 27TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT

NO. 862 7, H ONO RAB LE JO E CARROLL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Do y le J ohn Gar rett aka Doy al J ohn Gar

rett pled g uilty without a plea
ag ree ment to driving while intox icated—f elony repe tit i o n , enhanc ed with a prior conviction 1
for evading arrest with a motor vehicle. The trial court held a sentenc ing hear ing, revie wed a
prese ntenc i n g i n v est igation repor t, and sentenc ed him to eig hteen y ear s imprisonment. Gar rett’s appointed attorne y

has filed a

brief c oncluding that the appe al is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s brief meets the require ments of Anders v
. Ca li

fo rnia , 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1 9 67), by prese nting a profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord and demonstrating that th er e ar e n o
arguable g rounds to be advanc ed. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988); Anders , 386 U.S. at 743-44; High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W .2d

The indictment alleg ed that Gar rett had committed the subject offe nse in October 2010 and 1 had been convicted of offe nses related to operating a motor vehicle while intox icated on four ear lier occa sions be tween 1992 and 2005. I t included a “re peat offe nder” alleg ation that Gar rett had also been c onvicted of e vading arr est with a vehic le—dea dly wea pon in 2005.684, 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).

Gar rett’s attorney sent Gar

rett a copy of the brief and advised him that he had the rig ht to examine the record and file a pro se br ief. See A nders , 386 U.S. at 744; Jack son v. St ate , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). I n April 2012, we g rante d Gar rett’s motion for a

n extension of tim e
to file a pro se brief, extending his deadline to May 18, but to date, no pro se brief has been filed, and
Gar rett has not sent a

ny communications since se nding his motion for e x tension of time. Having revie wed the rec ord and the p ro cedur es that wer e observe d, we ag ree with counsel that the appea l is frivolous and without merit. We g rant counsel’s motion to withdraw and aff irm the judg ment of convic tion. 2

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ David Pury ear , J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Henson a nd Goodwin
Affir med Filed: August 16, 2012 Do Not Publish

No substitut e cou n s el will be appointed. Should Gar rett wish to seek further revie w of 2 his case by the court of crimi n al ap p ea l s , h e must either reta in an attorney to file a petition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petition for discretionar y revie w. See generally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overning proce eding s in the Tex as C o u rt o f Criminal Appea ls). Any petition for discretionar

y revie w must be filed within thirty day s from the date of either this opinion or the date this Court overr

ules the last timely motion for rehe aring filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, afte r which i t wi ll be forwa rded to the court of criminal appea ls along with the rest of the filings in the cause
. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionar

y revie w should comply with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of appellate proce dure. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.4, 68.5. 2