                                    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.


       1
           See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02 (Vernon Supp. 2010).
       2
           See id. § 22.02(a)(2).
                            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

        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.

                                                          2
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)




                                                           3
