Bonnie Wheeler, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee (2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Bonnie Wheeler appeals his conviction for theft of service.   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 the offense of theft of service, a state jail felony.   Appellant entered a plea of “guilty” to the offense charged in the indictment.   Appellant and his counsel signed various documents in connection with his guilty plea, including a stipulation of evidence in which Appellant swore that the facts alleged in the indictment were true and correct, and constituted the evidence in the case.   The trial court accepted Appellant's plea, found the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of Appellant's guilt, deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, and ordered that Appellant be placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for two years.

Later, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision.   Appellant signed a document entitled “Written Plea Admonishments and Stipulation of Evidence” in which he pleaded “true” to one of the allegations that he violated a condition of his community supervision.   At the hearing, Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations in paragraphs I and II, and “not true” to the remaining allegations in the State's application.   After a hearing, the trial court found all the allegations to be “true,” granted the State's application, adjudged Appellant guilty of theft of service, and assessed his punishment at twelve months in a state jail facility.   This appeal followed.

Analysis pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating 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.   From our review of counsel's brief, it is apparent that counsel 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.1978), counsel's brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case, and further states that counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.   We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.¹  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 in this case.   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 for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.   See Tex.R.App. P. 43.2.

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.   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 the day the last timely motion for rehearing was overruled by this court.   See Tex.R.App. P. 68.2(a). Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. 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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief.   Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.

PER CURIAM