## NO S . 12

- 16

- 00232

- CR 12

- 16

- 00233

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KIM SHELBY HERNDON, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL S FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNT Y, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Kim Shelby Herndon a ppeals two convictions of possession of between four and two hundred grams of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. Califo rnia , 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 affirm.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of between four and two hundred grams of methamphetamine w ith intent to deliver. He also was charged by separate indictment with possession of between four an d two hundred grams of oxycodone with intent to deliver. Appellant pleaded “guilty,” to each of the charges, and the matter proceeded to a sentencing
hear ing before the court. In each cause, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for thirty

- five years. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brie f in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State . Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of2

the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an

app eal 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 summati on of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. 1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible 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 do ne so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 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 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 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3(a). 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 19 , 2017. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. ( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 In compliance with Kelly v. State
, Appellant’s counse l provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kel ly v. State
, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 19 , 2017

NO. 12

- 16

- 00232

- CR

KIM SHELBY HERNDON,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007

- 1472

- 15) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.
It is th erefore 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 DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 19 , 2017

NO. 12

- 16

- 0023 3

- CR

KIM SHELBY HERNDON,

Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007

- 1473

- 1 5) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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 co urt 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

.