Case Information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JEFFERY LYNN INGISON, § APPEAL FROM THE 115TH APPELLANT § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

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.

B ACKGROUND

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. NALYSIS P URSUANT TO NDERS V ALIFORNIA

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. *2 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). ONCLUSION

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 , 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 EX . R. PP . 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. T P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. , 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)

COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT

AUGUST 9, 2017 JEFFERY LYNN INGISON,

Appellant

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.

[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. Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).