Court Opinion

ID: 4354037
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-24 09:47:13.848797+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:36.556908
License: Public Domain

NO. 12-17-00372-CR

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                           TYLER, TEXAS

 GREGORY DONELL PORTER,                                    §       APPEAL FROM THE 145TH
 APPELLANT

 V.                                                        §       JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

 THE STATE OF TEXAS,
 APPELLEE                                                  §       NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

                                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                            PER CURIAM
        Gregory Donell Porter appeals his conviction for tampering with evidence for which he
was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty five years. Appellant’s counsel 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). We affirm.

                                                 BACKGROUND
        Appellant was charged by indictment with tampering with evidence. He pleaded “not
guilty” and the case proceeded to a jury trial. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found
Appellant “guilty” of the charged offense. Appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s enhancement
allegations, and the jury sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for twenty five years.1 This appeal
followed.

        1
          The State alleged that Appellant had two previous, sequential felony convictions, elevating the punishment
range to twenty five to ninety nine years or life imprisonment. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp.
2018).
                             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 relates that he diligently reviewed and evaluated the appellate record
and found no error for our review. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief contains a thorough professional evaluation of the
record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.2
         We considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record.
Id. at 811. We found no reversible error.

                                                   CONCLUSION
         As required by Anders and Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (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, we agree with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
         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 pro se
petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty
days from the date of this court’s judgment or the date 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(a). Any petition for
discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

         2
           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. 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
Opinion delivered December 21, 2018.
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

                                         DECEMBER 21, 2018

                                         NO. 12-17-00372-CR

                                 GREGORY DONELL PORTER,
                                         Appellant
                                            V.
                                   THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                         Appellee

                                Appeal from the 145th District Court
                      of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1722779)

                       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 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.