1 

## NO S . 12

- 1 0

- 00 380

- CR 12

- 10

- 00381

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WILLIAM LAMON GOODWIN , § APPEAL FROM THE 114 TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § S MITH 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. Appel lant’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.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by separate i ndictments 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 year s for aggravated assault. This appeal followed.

1 The latter indictment also alleged that Appellant had been pr eviously convicted of a felony.2 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 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 reversib le error and have found none.

C ONCLUSION 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, Appel lant’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 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 last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 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 ow n brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.3

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas R ule 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)