1

NOS. 12-10-00380-CR

 12-10-00381-CR

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WILLIAM LAMON GOODWIN, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

William Lamon Goodwin appeals his convictions for possession of a firearm by a felon, for 

which he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years, and aggravated assault with a deadly 

weapon, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty years. 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 dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by separate indictments with felon in possession of a firearm and 

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.1 Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged in each cause 

and pleaded “true” to the deadly weapon allegation as well as the enhancement allegation 

pertaining to the aggravated assault charge. The trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged in 

each cause and sentenced him to imprisonment for ten years for felon in possession of a firearm 

and thirty years for aggravated assault. This appeal followed. 

 

1 The latter indictment also alleged that Appellant had been previously convicted of a felony.
2

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 has 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 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 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 dismissed.

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 

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 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. 

 

2 Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. 

Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have 

received no pro se brief.
3

See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. 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 July 29, 2011.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)