Court Opinion

ID: 3076289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 01:18:33.624039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:41:57.029106
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-12-00349-CR

                       IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

          TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                  TYLER, TEXAS

RODERICK ROY GIBSON,                           §           APPEALS FROM THE 145TH
APPELLANT

V.                                             §           JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                       §           NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Roderick Roy Gibson appeals his convictions for possession of four hundred or more grams of
cocaine, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten 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 possession of four hundred or more grams of
cocaine and pleaded “guilty.” The matter proceeded to a bench trial on punishment. Following the
presentation of evidence and argument of counsel, the trial court sentenced Appellant to
imprisonment for ten 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
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. 1 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 25, 2013.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

                                                (DO NOT PUBLISH)
         1
          Counsel for Appellant certified in his brief that he provided Appellant with a copy of the brief. Appellant was
given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and no pro se brief has been
filed.

                                                                2
                                     COURT OF APPEALS
           TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                             JUDGMENT

                                             JUNE 25, 2013

                                         NO. 12-12-00349-CR

                                    RODERICK ROY GIBSON,
                                           Appellant
                                              V.
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                           Appellee

                            Appeal from the 145th Judicial District Court
                       of Nacogdoches County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.F1118932)

                       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 Appellant’s
counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, 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., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

                                                      3