









 




 


NOS.
12-10-00019-CR
     
12-10-00020-CR
                        
IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS 
 
            TWELFTH
COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
                                      TYLER, TEXAS
PHILLIP
MARK BAILEY,                                §                 APPEALS FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT
 
V.                                                                         §                 JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT
 
THE
STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                                        §                 SMITH
COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                        
                                           
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Phillip Mark Bailey appeals his
conviction for forgery, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for seven
years and his conviction for robbery, for which he was sentenced to
imprisonment for thirty-five 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 dismiss the appeal.
 
Background
Appellant
was charged by separate indictments with forgery and robbery.  The
indictment for forgery further alleged that Appellant had been previously
convicted of two felony offenses.  Similarly, the indictment for robbery
alleged that Appellant had been previously convicted of one prior felony
offense.  Appellant pleaded
“guilty” as charged in each cause and, further, pleaded “true” to the
enhancement provisions underlying each charged offense.  The trial court found
Appellant “guilty” as charged in each cause and further found the
aforementioned enhancement allegations to be “true.”  Ultimately, the trial
court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for seven years for forgery and
thirty-five years for robbery.  This appeal followed. 
 
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 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. [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.[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.  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, Appellant=s counsel=s motion for leave to withdraw is
hereby granted and the appeal is dismissed.
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 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 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. 
See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion
delivered June 30, 2011.
Panel
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)








 





 



 
 
 




[1]
Counsel for Appellant states 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.


