









 




 


NO.
12-10-00146-CR
            
IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS 
 
            TWELFTH
COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
                                      TYLER, TEXAS
YADUR
SANCHEZ RODRIGUEZ,                 §                 APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT
 
V.                                                                         §                 JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT OF
 
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                                        §                 SMITH
COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                        
                                         
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Yadur
Sanchez Rodriguez appeals his conviction for aggravated assault.  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
was indicted for the felony offense of aggravated assault.[1]
The indictment
alleged that Appellant threatened another individual with imminent bodily
injury with a deadly weapon.  As alleged, the offense is a second degree
felony.[2]  Appellant pleaded guilty as
charged in exchange for the State’s agreement not to proceed with additional
charges.  The trial court conducted a sentencing hearing and assessed a
sentence of imprisonment for twenty 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.[3]
 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 408B09 (“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 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 March 31, 2011.
Panel
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)




[1] See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02 (Vernon Supp.
2010). 
 


[2] See id.
§ 22.02(a)(2). 


                [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.


