Wendel C. Pringle v. State ( 2011 )

NO. 12-09-00395-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
WENDEL C. PRINGLE, ' APPEAL FROM THE 7TH
APPELLANT
V. ' JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE ' SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Wendel C. Pringle appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated with a child
passenger, 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). We dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated with a child passenger
and pleaded “not guilty.” The indictment also alleged that Appellant had previously been
convicted of two felony offenses. A jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged, and the matter
proceeded to a bench trial on punishment. Appellant pleaded “true” to the enhancement
allegations concerning his two prior felony convictions. At the conclusion of the trial on
punishment, the trial court found the two enhancement allegations to be “true,” and sentenced
Appellant to imprisonment for ten 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 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. 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 sets forth 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 has 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 dismissed.
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 this court, after which it will be
forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case.
See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. 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
1
Counsel for Appellant has certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was
given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro
se brief.
408 n.22.
Opinion delivered January 5, 2010.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)