Court Opinion

ID: 9410627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-22 10:15:07.86608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:59.023365
License: Public Domain

NOS. 12-23-00004-CR
                                     12-23-00005-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

BRANDON LEE RICH,                               §      APPEALS FROM THE 8TH
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      RAINS COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Brandon Lee Rich appeals following the revocation of his 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 evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and
assault causing bodily injury, family violence, impeding breath or circulation. Appellant pleaded
“guilty” to both charges. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was sentenced to ten years
imprisonment, probated for ten years.
       Thereafter, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision in both
cases alleging Appellant violated certain terms and conditions thereof. A hearing was conducted
on the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to some of the State’s allegations in
each motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated
certain terms of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motions. As a result, the
trial court granted the motions to revoke and sentenced Appellant to ten years imprisonment.
This appeal followed.

                            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 he 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. He further relates that he 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 have 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 must either 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

         1
           In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his 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.

                                                         2
Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should
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 July 21, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

                                             (DO NOT PUBLISH)

                                                          3
                                 COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                          JUDGMENT

                                            JULY 21, 2023

                                        NO. 12-23-00004-CR

                                      BRANDON LEE RICH,
                                           Appellant
                                              V.
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                           Appellee

                                 Appeal from the 8th District Court
                             of Rains County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 6011)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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 for which execution may issue, 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.
                                  COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT
                                             JULY 21, 2023

                                         NO. 12-23-00005-CR

                                      BRANDON LEE RICH,
                                           Appellant
                                              V.
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                           Appellee

                                 Appeal from the 8th District Court
                             of Rains County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 6012)

                       THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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 for which execution may issue, 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.