Kadetric Laterion Caraway, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee (2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kadetric Laterion Caraway appeals his conviction for burglary of a building.  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 pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary of a building.  The trial court sentenced him to two years in a state jail facility and ordered restitution in the amount of $165,170.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant's counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous.  Appellant's counsel states that he has reviewed the record and concluded that it reflects no jurisdictional defects or reversible error.  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 procedural history of the case and a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no 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 conducted an independent review of the record and have found no reversible error.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex.Crim.App.2005).  Accordingly, we conclude the appeal is wholly frivolous.

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).  Having found that this appeal is wholly frivolous, we grant counsel's motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the trial court's judgment.

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 file a petition for discretionary review pro se.  Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 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;  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.   Appellant's counsel states that he provided Appellant with a copy of the Anders 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.

PER CURIAM