NO. 12-09-00360-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

AARON RAY WILLIAMS,

APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Aaron Ray Williams appeals his conviction for felony theft, for which he was 

sentenced to imprisonment for ten 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 dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with felony theft and pleaded “guilty.” The 

indictment further alleged that Appellant had previously been convicted of two state jail 

felonies. Appellant pleaded “true” to these two enhancement allegations. 

Subsequently, the trial court conducted a bench trial on punishment. At the 

conclusion of the trial on punishment, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged, 

found the enhancements to be “true,” and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ten 

years. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA

Appellant=s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and 

Gainous 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 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. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant=s brief presents a 
2

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.

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 motion for 

consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, 

Appellant=s counsel=s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the appeal is 

dismissed.

2

Opinion delivered September 1, 2010.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

 

1 Counsel for Appellant had certified that he 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 received no pro se brief.

2

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 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 this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. 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.