Court Opinion

ID: 3071877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:41:07.089023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:30.571991
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-13-00250-CR

                                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                   TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                             TYLER, TEXAS

TRACY TODD SMITH,                                         §        APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                        §        JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                           §   SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
                                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                              PER CURIAM
       Tracy Todd Smith appeals his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender, for which
he was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty 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 affirm.

                                                   BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with failure to register as a sex offender and pleaded
“not guilty.” The indictment further alleged that Appellant previously had been convicted of a
felony.1 The matter proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged and
Appellant elected to have the trial court assess his punishment. Ultimately, the trial court found
the enhancement allegation in the indictment to be “true” and sentenced Appellant to
imprisonment for twenty 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

       1
           Appellant later pleaded “true” to this enhancement allegation.
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 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 trial court’s judgment 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 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 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 30, 2014.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

                                               (DO NOT PUBLISH)

         2
          Counsel for Appellant stated in his motion to withdraw 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
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                            JUDGMENT

                                              JUNE 30, 2014

                                          NO. 12-13-00250-CR

                                      TRACY TODD SMITH,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0983-12)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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 Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.