## NO. 12

- 09

- 00 360

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

AARON RAY WILLIAMS , APPELLANT ' APPEAL FROM THE 7 TH

V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS, ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLEE MEMORANDUM OPINIO N 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 (196 7) and
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). We dismiss the appeal.

B ACKGROUND 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 char ged, found the enhancements to be “true,” and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ten 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
Gainous v. Stat e . 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

ac quainted 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 a2

chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states t hat 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), Appellant = s cou nsel 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 give n 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 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, he must either retain an atto rney 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 motio n 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 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 T EX

. R. A PP

. 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.