Keithen Jermaine Harris v. State ( 2010 )

NO. 12-09-00290-CR

                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS        

            TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

                                      TYLER, TEXAS

KEITHEN JERMAINE HARRIS,                    '           APPEAL FROM THE 217TH

APPELLANT

V. '         JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE '        ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

                                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Keithen Jermaine Harris appeals his conviction for robbery.  Appellant pleaded guilty to that offense and true to the four enhancement paragraphs in the indictment. The trial court assessed punishment at twenty-five years of imprisonment. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of that motion 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 Appellant’s appeal.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case and has diligently reviewed the appellate record.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that Appellant’s counsel is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.  We have considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own independent review of the record.  We have found no reversible error.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Conclusion

            As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  We are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.  Accordingly, his motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and we dismiss this appeal.  See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09.

            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 further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review.  Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion for rehearing is 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 the case.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3.  Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.  See Tex. R. App. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered July 14, 2010.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)