Case Information
*1 NOS. 12-16-00074-CR 12-16-00075-CR 12-16-00076-CR 12-16-00077-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS KEVIN NELSON, § APPEALS FROM THE 114TH APPELLANT § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM Kevin Nelson appeals his convictions 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.
B ACKGROUND The State charged Appellant with four counts of aggravated robbery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to the charged offenses, and the trial court placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years. The State subsequently filed an application to proceed to final adjudication. The trial court denied the application, and amended the terms of Appellant’s community supervision. The State later filed a second application. At a hearing on the application, Appellant pleaded “true” to violating the terms of his community supervision. The trial court granted the State’s application, revoked Appellant’s community supervision, found Appellant guilty of all four counts of aggravated robbery, and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment of forty years for each count, to run concurrently.
A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V . C ALIFORNIA Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous . Appellant’s counsel states that he has reviewed the record and concluded that it reflects no jurisdictional defects or reversible error. 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 procedural history of the case and a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable issues for appeal. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; Gainous , 436 S.W.2d at 138; see also Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).
Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he complains that he did not receive a fair trial and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We have considered counsel’s brief and Appellant’s pro se brief, and conducted an independent review of the appellate records. We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous. C 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 In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Having concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
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 T EX . R. A 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 with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this Court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2; 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 February 28, 2017.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
2 *3 (DO NOT PUBLISH) 3 *4 Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J *5 Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J *6 Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
*7 Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
FEBRUARY , 2017 Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.