NOS. 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

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Kim Shelby Herndon appeals 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. 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 affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of between four and two hundred 

grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. He also was charged by separate indictment 

with possession of between four and two hundred grams of oxycodone with intent to deliver. 

Appellant pleaded “guilty,” to each of the charges, and the matter proceeded to a sentencing 

hearing 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.

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 
2

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.1 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, 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 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 the Texas Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. 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 counsel 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 Kelly 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 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 DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 19, 2017

NO. 12-16-00233-CR

KIM SHELBY HERNDON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1473-15)

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 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.