Case Information
*1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
SIRDARIUS GENE ALEXANDER, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH APPELLANT § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Sirdarius Gene Alexander 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.
B ACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted for the first degree felony offense of aggravated robbery. Appellant made an open plea of “guilty” to the offense. After a hearing, the trial court accepted Appellant’s plea, found him guilty of the offense, and also made an affirmative finding that Appellant used or exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. After a punishment hearing, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for life. This appeal followed. NALYSIS P URSUANT T O NDERS V ALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with and , stating 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. From our review of counsel’s brief, it is apparent that counsel is well acquainted with the facts in this case. *2 In compliance with , , and High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.
Appellant filed a letter, which we will construe as a pro se brief, contending that his sentence is disproportionate to the severity of his crime. Appellant later sought, and we granted, an extension of time to review the record and file a pro se brief. Appellant failed to file a pro se brief. We have considered counsel’s brief and Appellant’s pro se letter brief, and conducted our own independent review of the appellate record. We found no reversible error. 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 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 granted , and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See T EX . R. A PP . 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 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 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 T EX . R. PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX R. PP . 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 January 31, 2017.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
2
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT
JANUARY 31, 2017 SIRDARIUS GENE ALEXANDER,
Appellant
Appellee
Appeal from the 7th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1419-15)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief 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.