                                NO. 12-09-00179-CR

                      IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

          TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                   TYLER, TEXAS

DARRYL DUVAL SPARKS,                           §           APPEAL FROM THE 217TH
APPELLANT

V.                                             §           JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                       §           ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Darryl Duval Sparks appeals his conviction for failure to comply with sex offender
registration requirements. Appellant’s counsel has 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 dismiss the appeal.


                                         BACKGROUND
       Appellant waived being charged by a grand jury.           See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. § 1.141 (Vernon 2005). The district attorney charged him by information with one count of
failure to comply with sex offender registration requirements. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.
ANN. § 62.102(b)(2) (Vernon 2006). The district attorney also alleged that Appellant had a prior
felony conviction. Appellant pleaded guilty as charged and pleaded true to the enhancement.
Following a hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for
fifteen years. This appeal followed.
                         ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
       Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel
states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the
facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel=s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural
history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for
appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80,
109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have likewise reviewed the record for
reversible error and have found none.


                                           CONCLUSION
       As required, Appellant=s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman,
252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d
503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal
is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we
dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09 (“After the completion of these
four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the
attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be
plausible grounds for appeal.”).
       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 further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either
retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for
discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.                  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 this court, after which it will be forwarded to
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R.
APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule
                                                  2
68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252
S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered May 5, 2010.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.




                                              (DO NOT PUBLISH)


                                                           3
