









 




 


NO.
12-10-00247-CR
                        
IN THE COURT OF
APPEALS 
 
            TWELFTH
COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
 
                                      TYLER, TEXAS
DONNIE
RAY SANDERS,                               §                 APPEAL FROM THE 217TH
APPELLANT
 
V.                                                                         §                 JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT
 
THE
STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE                                                        §                 ANGELINA
COUNTY, TEXAS
                                                        
                                           
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Donnie
Ray Sanders appeals his convictions for three counts of 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
An
Angelina County grand jury returned an indictment charging Appellant with three
counts of aggravated assault and three counts of intoxication assault.  The
grand jury also alleged that Appellant had a prior felony conviction. 
Appellant pleaded guilty to the three counts of aggravated assault and pleaded
true to the sentencing enhancement.  There was no plea agreement, but the State
dismissed the three intoxication assault counts the same day Appellant signed
the plea papers.  The trial court accepted Appellant’s guilty plea, found him
guilty, and assessed a sentence of imprisonment for thirty years.  This appeal
followed.
 
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.[1]  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 considered counsel’s brief and have conducted our own independent review
of the record.  We found no reversible error.  See Bledsoe v. State,
178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
 
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 408-09 (“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 the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3.[2]  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 August 17, 2011.
Panel
consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
 




[1] Counsel
for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw 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 received no
pro se brief. 


[2] By rule,
after September 1, 2011, petitions should be filed directly with the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals.  See Tex.
R. App. P. 68.3(a) (effective September 1, 2011).  


