NO. 12-18-00283-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LANDON RILEY WOMACK,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Landon Riley Womack appeals following the revocation of his deferred adjudication 

community supervision. 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 affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated robbery and pleaded “guilty.” The 

trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for ten 

years.

Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging that Appellant violated 

certain terms and conditions of his community supervision. A hearing was conducted on the State’s 

motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to the violations alleged in the State’s petition. This

included an allegation that Appellant committed robbery while on community supervision. During 

the hearing, Appellant testified as follows:

Q. Mr. Womack, you -- you have already pled true to Paragraph 1, which alleges that you were put 

on probation in this case back in March of 2015?

A. Yes.
2

Q. Okay. And that was for the charge of aggravated robbery --

A. Yes.

Q. -- a first-degree felony?

A. Yes.

Q. And you were placed on probation for a term of ten years?

A. Yes.

Q. And you understood that?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. The first paragraph in the terms and conditions of probation, "Thou shalt not violate the law."

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Yet, in September of last year, you committed a similar act to the act that you’re on probation 

for.

A. Yes. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms and 

conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion. The trial court revoked 

Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him “guilty” of aggravated robbery, and sentenced 

him to imprisonment for life.1 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 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 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 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 moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. 

 1 Appellant’s sentence is within the applicable punishment range. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.32 (West 

2019).

2 In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified 

Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response, and took 

concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and no 

pro se brief has been filed.
3

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 affirmed.

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 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 either the date of this opinion or, if a motion for rehearing is 

filed, the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is 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 

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 June 28, 2019.

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

JUNE 28, 2019

NO. 12-18-00283-CR

LANDON RILEY WOMACK,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court 

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1621-14)

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.