1 

## NO. 12

- 0 9

- 00 29 0

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KEITHEN JERMAINE HARRIS , ' APPEAL FROM THE 21 7 T H APPELLANT

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE ' ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Keithen Jermaine Harris appeals h is conviction for robbery

. Appellant pleaded guilty to that offense and true to the four enhancement paragraphs in the indictment. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty

- five years of imprisonment. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion 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 A ppellant’s appeal.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous , stating that he is
well acquainted with the facts in this case and has diligently reviewed the appellate record. In

com pliance with Anders
, Gainous , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant’s counsel is of the opinion that the recor d reflect s no reversible error and counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have considered counsel’s bri ef and conducted our own independent review of the record. We have found no reversible error.2

See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

- 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

C ONCLUSION As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman
, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal
is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion to withdraw is hereby granted , and we dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408

- 09. 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 further review of th is case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be fil ed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion for rehearing is 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 f orwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in the case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. S ee T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.4; In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered July 14 , 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )