NO. 12-14-00229-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BLAKE CARRINGTON GEE, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF 

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Blake Carrington Gee appeals his conviction for engaging in organized criminal activity. 

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief asserting 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). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On December 1, 2013, a Smith County grand jury returned an indictment against 

Appellant for the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity. With no agreement on 

punishment, Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense. After ordering and receiving the 

presentence investigation report, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing in which 

Appellant called several witnesses, including himself, to testify on his behalf. The State did not 

call any witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of 

engaging in organized criminal activity and assessed punishment at thirty years of imprisonment 

with no fine. This appeal followed. 
2

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, and states 

that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and 

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a thorough 

chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is 

unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; 

Gainous, 436 S.W.2d at 138; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 

L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).

Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised the following issues: (1) his 

sentence should not exceed twenty years, (2) the trial court incorrectly admonished him 

regarding the range of punishment, (3) the indictment was fundamentally defective, (4) he 

received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, (5) a fatal variance existed between the 

indictment and the State’s proof at trial, and (6) he received ineffective assistance of counsel on 

appeal. We have considered counsel’s brief, Appellant’s pro se brief, and have also conducted 

our own independent review of the appellate record. We 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 are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal 

is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant his motion for leave to withdraw, and affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(a).

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. See id. at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed 

within thirty days after the date of this opinion or after the date this court overrules the last 

timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review 
3

must be filed with the clerk of 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 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 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. 12-14-00229-CR

BLAKE CARRINGTON GEE,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1861-13)

THIS 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 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.