

                                NO.
12-05-00327-CR
 
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
 
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
TYLER, TEXAS
 
 
RENE SALINAS,      §          APPEAL
FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT
 
V.        §          JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE   §          SMITH
COUNTY, TEXAS
 


















 
 

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
            Rene Salinas
appeals his conviction for engaging in organized criminal activity, for which
he was sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen years.  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 with aggravated assault as a member of a criminal street gang.  The indictment further charged that Appellant
used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.  Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged, and a
hearing on punishment was conducted. 
Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for fifteen
years.  This appeal followed.
Analysis
Pursuant to Anders v. California




            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). Appellant’s counsel
states 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. 
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. 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 have likewise reviewed the record for
reversible error and have found none.
 
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.  We carried the motion for consideration with
our consideration of this matter.  Having
done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s
judgment is affirmed.
Opinion
delivered September 6, 2006.
Panel consisted of Worthen,
C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
                                                                                                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)




1
Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw 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 received no pro se brief.


