Court Opinion

ID: 3093454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 04:15:54.863756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:51:12.246901
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-08-00424-CR

                        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

          TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                   TYLER, TEXAS

JEFFERY BURLESON,                               '           APPEAL FROM THE 123RD
APPELLANT

V.                                              '           JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        '           SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                         PER CURIAM
       Jeffrey Burleson appeals his conviction for aggravated assault. Appellant’s counsel has
filed a brief asserting 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
filed a pro se brief. We dismiss the appeal.

                                         BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault. Appellant pleaded guilty,
and the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication community supervision. Appellant
violated the terms of his community supervision. Following a hearing, the trial court found him
guilty, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to imprisonment for eleven years.
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. 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).
         Appellant argues in his pro se brief that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and
that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. 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 for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we
dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408B09 (“After the completion of these
four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the
attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be
plausible grounds for appeal.”).
         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. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.                  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 this court, after which it will be forwarded to
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this 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)