## NO. 12

- 14

- 00369

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ERIC GRIFFIN MOORE, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 145T H

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORAND UM OPINION PER CURIAM Eric Griffin Moore appeals his convictions of two counts of sexual assault of a child, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen years for each offense. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. Ca lifornia , 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 two counts of sexual assault of a child and pleaded “guilty” to e ach count. The matter proceeded to a punishment hearing. Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for eighteen years for each offense. 1 This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFO RNIA 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 th at there is no error upon which an

1 The trial court ordered that Appellant’s sentences run concurrently.2

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 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. 2 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
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 co nsideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment. 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 Appella nt 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 discretion ary 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 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 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 31, 2015

. Panel con sisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

2 Counsel for Appellant sets forth in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was given time to file his o wn brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31 , 2015

NO. 12

- 14

- 00369

- CR

ERIC GRIFFIN MOORE, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal fr om the 145th District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1420822)

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 judgmen t. 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 N eeley , J.