                                  NO. 12-15-00314-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

              TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                    TYLER, TEXAS

MATTHEW STEVEN CURREY,                          §      APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                        §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Matthew Steven Currey appeals his conviction for theft. 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 for theft. The indictment also alleged that Appellant had two
previous theft convictions, enhancing the punishment level to that of a state jail felony.
Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the offense, and based on a plea agreement, the trial court placed
Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for two years.
       In 2013, the State filed an application to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. Appellant pleaded
“true” to the allegations in the State’s application. After a hearing, the trial court denied the
State’s application and continued Appellant’s community supervision. However, as a condition
of Appellant’s community supervision, the trial court ordered that Appellant serve thirty days of
confinement in the county jail.
       In 2014, the State filed a second application to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt.        After
Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations in the State’s application, the trial court denied the
application, but extended Appellant’s community supervision for an additional three years.
         In 2015, the State filed a third application to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt. Appellant again
pleaded “true” to the allegations in the State’s application. After a hearing, the trial court
adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, found him guilty, revoked his community supervision, and
sentenced him to fifteen months of confinement in a state jail facility. This appeal followed.

                             ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
         Appellant’s counsel filed a brief 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 brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case.
In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App.
1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case,
and further states 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 is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and
the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
         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 this court’s
         1
            Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed
Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for
filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.




                                                          2
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
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. 12-15-00314-CR


                                 MATTHEW STEVEN CURREY,
                                         Appellant
                                            V.
                                   THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                         Appellee


                                Appeal from the 114th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-2004-09)

                        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.
