Court Opinion

ID: 3091287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:00:53.927443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:00.757801
License: Public Domain

NO.
12-09-00173-CR
      
                         IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS         
 
            TWELFTH
COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
                                      TYLER, TEXAS
WILLIE
RAY WILSON,                                    '                 APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT
 
V.                                                                         '                 JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                                        '                 SMITH COUNTY,
TEXAS
                                                        
                                         
                                                      MEMORANDUM
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Willie
Ray Wilson appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated with a child
passenger.  Appellant’s counsel has 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).  We
dismiss the appeal. 
 
Background
Appellant
pleaded guilty to the offense of driving while intoxicated with a child
passenger.[1]
 Pursuant to a
plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Appellant to confinement for two
years.  The trial court suspended Appellant’s sentence and placed him on
community supervision for three years.  In March 2009, the State filed a motion
to revoke Appellant’s suspended sentence.  In its application, the State
alleged that Appellant possessed or used cocaine in violation of the terms of
his community supervision.  A hearing was held, and Appellant refused to enter
a plea.  The State showed that evidence of cocaine use had been found in a
sample of Appellant’s urine.  The trial court found Appellant to be in
violation of the terms of his community supervision, revoked his suspended
sentence, and assessed a sentence of confinement for twenty-one months and a
fine of five hundred dollars.  This appeal followed. 
 
Analysis
Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders
and Gainous.  Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the
appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. 
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; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80,
109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).  We have likewise reviewed the
record for reversible error and have found none.
 
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, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted,
and we dismiss this appeal.  See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d at 408B09 (“After the completion of
these four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is
wholly frivolous, grant the attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss
the appeal, or it will determine that there may be plausible grounds for
appeal.”).
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 In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.  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 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 June 30, 2010.
Panel
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

[1]
See Tex. Penal Code Ann.
§ 49.045 (Vernon Supp. 2009).