NOS. 12-14-00366-CR

 12-14-00367-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ELIJAH BROWN, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 411TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

TRINITY COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Elijah Brown appeals the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision 

in two causes. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in each cause 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 separate indictments with burglary of a habitation and pleaded 

“guilty” to each charge. The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” of the charges and 

placed him on community supervision for five years in each cause. 

On August 12, 2014, the State filed motions to proceed to final adjudication alleging that 

Appellant had violated certain terms and conditions of his community supervision in each cause. 

On September 30, 2014, a hearing was conducted on the State’s motions, at which Appellant 

pleaded “not true” to the allegations. Following the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant 

had violated multiple terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s 

motions. Thereafter, in each cause, the trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, 
2

adjudicated him “guilty” as charged, and sentenced him to imprisonment for twelve years. This 

appeal followed. 

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel filed briefs in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. 

State. Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record in each 

cause and is of the opinion that the records reflect 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 these cases. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s briefs present a chronological summation of the 

procedural histories of the cases and further state that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any 

arguable issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the records 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 motions for consideration with the merits. 

Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motions for 

leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

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 judgments 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 

 

1 Counsel for Appellant sets forth in his motions to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of 

these briefs. Appellant was given time to file his own briefs in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has 

expired and we have received no pro se briefs.
3

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 22, 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 22, 2015

NO. 12-14-00366-CR

ELIJAH BROWN,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 411th District Court 

of Trinity County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 10161-A)

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 22, 2015

NO. 12-14-00367-CR

ELIJAH BROWN,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 411th District Court 

of Trinity County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 10078-A)

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.