Court Opinion

ID: 3090762
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 03:57:21.306891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:05.710313
License: Public Domain

NO

NO. 12-09-00336-CR
NO. 12-09-00337-CR
NO. 12-09-00338-CR
 
                         IN
THE COURT OF APPEALS
 
            TWELFTH
COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
                                      TYLER, TEXAS
 
IRA DELL LAMPIN,
APPELLANT                                                     '     APPEALS
FROM THE 7TH
 
V.                                                                         '     JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 '     SMITH
COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLEE
 

MEMORANDUM
OPINION
PER
CURIAM
            Ira
Dell Lampin appeals his three convictions for aggravated sexual assault of a
child.  Appellant pleaded guilty to each offense.  The trial court assessed
punishment at imprisonment for life in each case, the sentences to run
concurrently.  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
appeals.
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 these cases and has
diligently reviewed the appellate records.  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 cases, and further states that Appellant’s counsel is
of the opinion that the records reflect 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 records.  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 these appeals are
wholly frivolous.  Accordingly, his motion to withdraw is hereby granted,
and we dismiss these appeals.  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 these cases
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 July 7, 2010.
Panel consisted of
Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)