                                  NO. 12-16-00146-CR

                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

               TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                     TYLER, TEXAS

JEFFERY LYNN INGISON,                            §      APPEAL FROM THE 115TH
APPELLANT

V.                                               §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                         §      UPSHUR COUNTY, TEXAS

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                      PER CURIAM
       Jeffery Lynn Ingison appeals his conviction for repeatedly violating a court order, for
which he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten 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). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro
se brief. We affirm.


                                          BACKGROUND
       Appellant was charged by indictment with repeatedly violating a court order and pleaded
“guilty.” The matter proceeded to a bench trial on punishment. Ultimately, the trial court found
Appellant “guilty” as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for ten years. 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
        Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised the following issues: (1) he
received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal; (2) the indictment was erroneous
and defective and the district attorney violated the law by failing to give Appellant sufficient
notice of the charges against him; (3) Appellant was not given appropriate notice that violating
the court order twice in a twelve month period was a felony; (4) Appellant was never given a
copy of the judgment in violation of his civil rights; and (5) Appellant was denied bond. We
have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. 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 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 trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
        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 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 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.


        1
          In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of his motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).


                                                        2
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 August 9, 2017.
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

                                            AUGUST 9, 2017


                                         NO. 12-16-00146-CR


                                    JEFFERY LYNN INGISON,
                                           Appellant
                                              V.
                                     THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                           Appellee


                                Appeal from the 115th District Court
                            of Upshur County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 17268)

                        THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs 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.
