                                 NOS. 12-15-00215-CR
                                      12-15-00217-CR
                                      12-15-00218-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

JACOB LEE ROPER,                                §      APPEALS FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                     PER CURIAM
       Jacob Lee Roper appeals his convictions for aggravated robbery and burglary of a
building. 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 in two cases for aggravated robbery and in a third case for
burglary of a building. Appellant entered an open plea of “guilty” to the offenses. The trial
court accepted the pleas. After a hearing on punishment, the trial court found Appellant guilty of
all three offenses and sentenced him to two years of confinement in a state jail facility for the
burglary of a building charge, and forty years of imprisonment on each of the aggravated
robberies, to be served concurrently. These appeals followed.
                            ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         Appellant’s counsel filed briefs 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 briefs, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in these
cases. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s briefs present a chronological summation of the procedural history
of the cases, and further state that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal. We
have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.1 See Bledsoe v. State, 178
S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).


                                                  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 are wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw are hereby granted,
and the trial court’s judgments are affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
         As a result of our disposition of these cases, 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 in each case. 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 these cases
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.
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



         1
            Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his briefs and informed
Appellant that he had the right to file his own briefs. Appellant was given time to file his own briefs, but the time
for filing such briefs has expired and we have received no pro se brief.




                                                         2
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 July 29, 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

                                             JULY 29, 2016


                                         NO. 12-15-00215-CR


                                       JACOB LEE ROPER,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee


                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0321-15)

                        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.
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                             JULY 29, 2016


                                         NO. 12-15-00217-CR


                                       JACOB LEE ROPER,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee


                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0320-15)

                        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.
                                   COURT OF APPEALS

      TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                           JUDGMENT

                                             JULY 29, 2016


                                         NO. 12-15-00218-CR


                                       JACOB LEE ROPER,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee


                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0322-15)

                        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.
