Court Opinion

ID: 9895105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 10:17:39.457916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:06.880549
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-23-00111-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                      TYLER, TEXAS

RAYME EVERETT,                                    §      APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                          §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                   MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                       PER CURIAM

       Rayme Everett appeals following the revocation of his deferred adjudication community
supervision. 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 burglary of a habitation and pleaded “guilty.”
The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for
five years, a period which the trial court later extended by an additional five years.
       Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and
to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions thereof.
Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of his community supervision,
in pertinent part, because he (1) failed to abide by the law and committed the criminal offense of
online solicitation of a minor - sexual conduct, (2) failed to report as directed by his community
supervision officer in September 2021, (3) failed to report and submit to random urinalysis at the
request of his community supervision officer on five separate occasions between February 2020
and April 2022, and (4) failed to pay sixty dollars per month as a supervision fee to the Smith
County Community Supervision and Corrections Department for the months of April and
September 2022.
       A hearing was conducted on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to all
the allegations in the State’s motion other than the allegation that he committed a crime. In
support of its motion, the State elicited testimony from, among others, Lee McMillian, who
worked for the Collin County Sheriff’s Office’s Child Exploitation Unit. McMillian testified
that in October 2022, he was working in conjunction with a multi-agency operation in Smith
County, Texas, where he, acting undercover, portrayed himself online as a fourteen-year-old girl
named “Peyton.” Lee stated that he exchanged multiple photos of Peyton with an individual
whose phone number was associated with Appellant. Lee also stated that he exchanged texts
with Appellant under this online persona.     He further outlined the process by which law
enforcement was able to link the phone number used to Appellant. He later testified that he (as
Peyton) received a message from the phone number associated with Appellant stating, “I’m DTF
if you are.” Lee explained that the acronym “DTF” means “down to [f*ck]” and is an invitation
to a “casual sexual encounter.” Lee (as Peyton) responded that she indeed was “down to [f*ck]
if you’re cool. I’m almost 15.” Lee stated that in response, he received a request for another
picture of Peyton “with less clothes on.” The record reflects that on the heels of that message,
Lee (as Peyton) received another text from Appellant, in which he stated, “And I’m down[,]”
followed by another text, in which Appellant asked Peyton if she swallowed and if she “does
anal as well.” Later, Appellant sent a text in which he stated that he would “bring lube and be
really nice when I slide inside your booty.” Eventually, after Lee received a request to meet in
person, he sent a message with the address for Rose Rudman Park in Tyler. Lee testified that
Appellant did not show up at the rendezvous point.
       At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms
and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion. Thereafter, it
revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him “guilty” of burglary of a
habitation, and sentenced him to imprisonment for twelve years. This appeal followed.

                                               2
                            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 she 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. She further relates that she 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 likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

                                                 CONCLUSION
        As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel 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, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
        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 either must 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 either the date of this
opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing 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

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief
has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

                                                        3
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 October 31, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          4
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                          OCTOBER 31, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00111-CR

                                       RAYME EVERETT,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee

                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0241-19)

                       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., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.