Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
from the 402nd District Court of Wood County, Texas
(Tr.Ct.No. 22, 965-2016)
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
Leon McRoy appeals his conviction for evading arrest or
detention with a vehicle. 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.
was charged by indictment with evading arrest or detention
with a vehicle. The indictment further alleged that Appellant
used a vehicle as a deadly weapon in the commission of the
charged offense and had two prior felony convictions.
Appellant pleaded "guilty, " and the matter
proceeded to a jury trial on punishment. Appellant pleaded
"not true" to the enhancement allegations and the
deadly weapon allegation. But following the presentation of
evidence and argument of counsel, the jury found the
allegations to be "true" and assessed
Appellant's punishment at imprisonment for thirty-seven
years. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and
this appeal followed.
Pursuant to Anders v. California
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. We likewise reviewed the record
for reversible error and have found none.
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.
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 Schulm an, 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 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 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4.
See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
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
therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed,
and that this decision be ...