Court Opinion

ID: 3071196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-16 00:33:16.066235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:37.625554
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-14-00024-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

CHARLES LEROY HALL, JR.,                         §      APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Charles Leroy Hall, Jr. appeals his conviction for delivery of a controlled substance,
cocaine, in a drug free zone. 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 the offense of delivery of a controlled
substance, cocaine, in an amount of one gram or more, but less than four grams, a second degree
felony. The indictment also included an allegation that Appellant committed the offense in, on,
or within 1,000 feet of a school, a drug free zone. Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the
offense charged in the indictment. Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in
connection with his guilty plea, including a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that
the facts alleged in the indictment were true and correct, and constituted the evidence in the case.
The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found the evidence was sufficient to support a finding
of Appellant’s guilt, deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and
ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years.
         Later, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that
Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. At the hearing, the State
abandoned paragraph four of the application. Appellant pleaded “true” to all the other allegations
contained in the State’s application. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations to be
“true,” granted the State’s application, adjudged Appellant guilty of delivery of a controlled
substance, cocaine, in a drug free zone, and assessed his punishment at twelve years of
imprisonment. This appeal followed.

                             ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating 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. From our
review of counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case.
In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case,
and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have
reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.1 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 in the case. 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 the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
         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

         1
            Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed
Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for
filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.

                                                          2
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
day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2.(a)
Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
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 August 13, 2014.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

                                              (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                           3
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                            JUDGMENT

                                           AUGUST 13, 2014

                                          NO. 12-14-00024-CR

                                  CHARLES LEROY HALL, JR.,
                                          Appellant
                                             V.
                                    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                          Appellee

                                 Appeal from the 241st District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1470-12)

                        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 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.