Court Opinion

ID: 2916838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-10 21:10:09.06822+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:52.406830
License: Public Domain

NO.
12-06-00053-CR
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 
 
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
TYLER, TEXAS
PAUL LAWRENCE WHITE,          §                      APPEAL FROM THE SECOND
APPELLANT
 
V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE   §                      CHEROKEE
COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                                                                                                                           

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
            Paul
Lawrence White appeals his conviction for the offense of arson.  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).  Appellant
has not filed a brief.  We affirm.
 
Background
            Appellant
pleaded guilty to the second degree felony offense of arson.  Adjudication of guilt was deferred, and
Appellant was placed on community supervision. 
Several years later, the State made application to revoke his community
supervision.  The State alleged that
Appellant had failed to perform community service as ordered and failed to
report to his probation officer.  A
hearing was held, and Appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations.  The trial court found the allegations to be
true and found Appellant guilty. 
Thereafter the court assessed punishment at twelve years of
imprisonment.  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.
            We
have considered the brief submitted by Appellant’s counsel and have conducted
our own independent review of the record. 
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 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 Stafford v. State,
813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 
After considering the record and the brief and having found no
reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant
Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.
 
Opinion
delivered August 31, 2006.
Panel
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)