Document Info

DocketNumber: 12-17-00391-CR

Filed Date: 10/10/2018

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/12/2018

  •                                  NO. 12-17-00391-CR
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
    TYLER, TEXAS
    TRAYVON BERNHARD JOHNSON,                       §      APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
    APPELLANT
    V.                                              §      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    APPELLEE                                        §      SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    PER CURIAM
    Trayvon Bernhard Johnson appeals following the revocation of his deferred adjudication
    community supervision.     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.
    BACKGROUND
    Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a habitation and pleaded “guilty.”
    The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for
    five years.
    Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision
    alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions thereof. A hearing was conducted on
    the State’s motion, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to eight violations alleged in the State’s
    motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the terms
    and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in the State’s motion. The trial court
    revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him “guilty” of burglary of a habitation,
    and sentenced him to imprisonment for twelve years. This appeal followed.
    ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
    Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
    State. Appellant’s counsel states 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. He further relates 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
    (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
    We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.
    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, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
    hereby granted and the appeal 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 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 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 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 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See
    TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a).           Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the
    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. See Kelly v. State, 
    436 S.W.3d 313
    , 319
    (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired
    and no pro se brief has been filed.
    2
    requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re 
    Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408
    n.22.
    Opinion delivered October 10, 2018.
    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 10, 2018
    NO. 12-17-00391-CR
    TRAYVON BERNHARD JOHNSON,
    Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS,
    Appellee
    Appeal from the 114th District Court
    of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0339-16)
    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.