                                      NO. 12-13-00350-CR

                             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                 TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                         TYLER, TEXAS

DAVON ONEYL GRAVES,                                   §          APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT

V.                                                    §          JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                              §          SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                          PER CURIAM
       Davon Oneyl Graves appeals his conviction for aggravated robbery. 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
       In the early morning hours of March 23, 2013, an armed robbery occurred at a
convenience store in Tyler, Texas. Law enforcement officers investigating the robbery
discovered that Appellant was the sole suspect and arrested him. Appellant was indicted for the
first degree felony offense of aggravated robbery. 1 Appellant made an open plea of “guilty”
without an agreement as to punishment. He also pleaded “true” to the allegation that he used or
exhibited a firearm during the commission of the offense. After admonishing Appellant, the trial
court accepted his plea and found him guilty of the offense. After a hearing on punishment, the
trial court sentenced Appellant to fifteen years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.




       1
           See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03(a)(2) (West 2011).
                        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.
       Appellant submitted a letter in response to counsel’s brief. Construing this letter as a pro
se brief, Appellant raised issues in the letter that his sentence was excessive and that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to question Appellant’s competency to
enter a plea of guilt or stand trial. 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 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
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



                                                 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 March 4, 2015.
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

                                            MARCH 4, 2015


                                         NO. 12-13-00350-CR


                                     DAVON ONEYL GRAVES,
                                            Appellant
                                               V.
                                      THE STATE OF TEXAS,
                                            Appellee


                                  Appeal from the 7th District Court
                         of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-0901-13)

                        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., J., Hoyle, and Neeley, J.
