Court Opinion

ID: 3093477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:15:59.863084+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:03.238037
License: Public Domain

NOS. 12-08-00463-CR

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

          TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

JAMIE O’NEAL BLACKSHIRE,                           '          APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT

V.                                              '             JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                       '              SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Jamie O’Neal Blackshire appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his probation for
possession of a prohibited substance in a correctional facility.          The trial court assessed
punishment at eighteen months of confinement in a state jail facility. Appellant’s counsel filed a
motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion 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 dismiss Appellant’s appeal.

                         ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
       Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he is
well acquainted with the facts in this case and has diligently reviewed the appellate record. In
compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978),
Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and
further states that Appellant’s counsel is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error
and counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have considered counsel’s brief
and conducted our own independent review of the record. We have found no reversible error.
See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

                                                   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 to withdraw is hereby granted, and we dismiss this
appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09.
         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. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from
the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion for rehearing is 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 the 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 January 29, 2010.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

                                              (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                           2