Jason Claire Reese, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee (2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jason Claire Reese appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation.   Appellant's counsel filed a brief asserting 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

A Smith County grand jury returned an indictment against Appellant that alleged he committed the offense of burglary of a habitation, and had a prior conviction for a felony.   Appellant pleaded “guilty” to burglary of a habitation and “true” to the enhancement paragraph without an agreed punishment.   The trial court ordered a presentence investigation and a sentencing hearing was held.   At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” of burglary of a habitation, found the enhancement paragraph to be “true,” and assessed punishment at ten years of imprisonment.   This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant's counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous.   Counsel states that he has reviewed the appellate record and that he is unable to find any reversible error or jurisdictional defects.   In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App.1978), counsel's brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states why counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal.¹  See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S.Ct. at 1400;  Gainous, 436 S.W.2d at 138;  see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 350, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).

We have considered counsel's brief and conducted our own independent review of the record.   We 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) (en banc).   We agree with Appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous.   Accordingly, we grant his motion for leave to withdraw, and affirm the judgments of the trial court.   See Tex.R.App. P. 43.2(a).

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 after either the date of this court's judgment or the date 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(a).   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.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Counsel states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief.   Appellant was given time to file his own brief in this cause.   The time for filing such brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief.

PER CURIAM