NO. 12-14-00045-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TIMOTHY DALE WOOD, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 173RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Timothy Dale Wood appeals his conviction for fraudulent use or possession of 

identifying information. Appellant entered a guilty plea, and the trial court sentenced him to ten 

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 affirm.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that she 

has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no 

reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. She further relates that she 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. 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 considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own 

 

1 Counsel for Appellant has certified that she 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 not received 

a pro se brief.
2

independent review of the record. We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

CONCLUSION

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. 1991). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. 

Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant 

wish to seek further review of this 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 filed 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 TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the 

clerk for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in the case. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the 

requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; 

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 8, 2015.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 8, 2015

NO. 12-14-00045-CR

TIMOTHY DALE WOOD,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. B-20,140)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, 

and the same being considered, it is the opinion of the 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 the decision be certified to the court below 

for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

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