## NO. 12

- 13

- 00057

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DALLAS YOUMANS, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 241S T

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

M EMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Dallas Youmans appeals his conviction for intoxication manslaughter, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen years. 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.

B ACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with intoxication manslaughter and pleaded “guilty.” The matter proceeded to a bench trial on punishment. Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for eighteen years . This appeal followed

.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V
. C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainou s 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 i s well acquainted with the facts in this case.2

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.

C ONCLUSION As required by Stafford v. State
, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appell ant’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 c ounsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed

. 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, h e 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 opin ion 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 discreti onary 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 January 31, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

1 Counsel for Appellant set forth in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause. 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

JANUARY 3 1 , 2014

NO. 12

- 13

- 00057

- CR

DALLAS YOUMANS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241

- 1013

- 12 )

TH I S CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there w as no error in the judgment. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant ’ s counsel ’s motion to withdraw is granted
, 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., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.