Finist Lee Brooks, Jr. v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

NO. 12-24-00009-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
FINIST LEE BROOKS, JR., § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Finist Lee Brooks, Jr. appeals his conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
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 the trial court’s judgment.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. 1
Appellant pleaded “guilty” pursuant to a plea-bargain agreement. The trial court found the
evidence sufficient to find Appellant “guilty” but deferred further proceedings and placed
Appellant on community supervision for seven years. The State subsequently filed a motion to
adjudicate Appellant’s guilt, in which it alleged that Appellant violated the conditions of his
community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to each of the alleged violations. The trial court
found that Appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision, found him “guilty” of
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West Supp. 2023).
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and assessed punishment at seven years of
imprisonment. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he
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. Counsel further states 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, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel’s brief presents a
chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and states that counsel is unable to
raise any arguable issues for appeal. 2
Appellant filed a pro se brief, in which he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We
reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824,
826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous.
CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel moved for leave to withdraw. See also In re Schulman, 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, we grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw and
affirm the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.
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 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 if a
2
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. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319
(Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
2
motion for rehearing is filed, the date that the last timely motion for rehearing is 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 comply with the requirements of Teas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.
Opinion delivered October 9, 2024.
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
OCTOBER 9, 2024
NO. 12-24-00009-CR
FINIST LEE BROOKS, JR.,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 7th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1637-18)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the court
below should be affirmed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for
observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.