eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2011-06

Phillip Mark Bailey v. State ( 2011 )


Menu:

  •  
     
    NOS. 12-10-00019-CR

    12-10-00020-CR

                            

    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

     

                TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

     

                                          TYLER, TEXAS

    PHILLIP MARK BAILEY,                                §                 APPEALS FROM THE 114TH

    APPELLANT

     

    V.                                                                         §                 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

     

    THE STATE OF TEXAS,

    APPELLEE                                                        §                 SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

    MEMORANDUM OPINION

    PER CURIAM

    Phillip Mark Bailey appeals his conviction for forgery, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and his conviction for robbery, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty-five 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 separate indictments with forgery and robbery.  The indictment for forgery further alleged that Appellant had been previously convicted of two felony offenses.  Similarly, the indictment for robbery alleged that Appellant had been previously convicted of one prior felony offense.  Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged in each cause and, further, pleaded “true” to the enhancement provisions underlying each charged offense.  The trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged in each cause and further found the aforementioned enhancement allegations to be “true.”  Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for seven years for forgery and thirty-five years for robbery.  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 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 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 408 n.22.

    Opinion delivered June 30, 2011.

    Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    (DO NOT PUBLISH)

     
     

     

     

     


    [1] Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw 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.