                                      NO. 12-15-00282-CR

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                         TYLER, TEXAS

DAVID LYNN GREGSON,                                    §      APPEAL FROM THE 145TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                     §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                               §      NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          PER CURIAM
       David Lynn Gregson appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated. 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 indicted for the offense of driving while intoxicated (DWI), a third degree
felony as alleged due to prior DWI convictions.1 The indictment also contained an enhancement
paragraph alleging that Appellant had another prior felony conviction. The State subsequently
filed a notice of intent to use a second prior felony conviction to further enhance Appellant’s
punishment. These enhancements invoked the habitual felony offender statute, which requires a
sentence of imprisonment from twenty-five to ninety-nine years or life.2 Appellant pleaded not
guilty to the offense and “true” to the enhancements. After a trial, the jury found Appellant
guilty of the offense. After a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to thirty
years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

       1
           See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04, 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 2016).
       2
           See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(d) (West Supp. 2016).
                            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.3 We have
considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the appellate record.
We found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App.
2005). Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous.


                                                  CONCLUSION
         As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the
appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is granted, and the
trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
         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 the date of this court’s
judgment or the date the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court. See TEX.


         3
           Counsel for Appellant has certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was
given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received
a pro se brief.




                                                          2
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.
Opinion delivered August 17, 2016.
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

                                           AUGUST 17, 2016


                                         NO. 12-15-00282-CR


                                     DAVID LYNN GREGSON,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee


                                Appeal from the 145th District Court
                      of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1521515)

                        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.
