NO. 12-08-00421-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

NATHANIEL HOWARD, III,                      §                      APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V.                                                                    §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE                                                   §                      SMITH  COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Nathaniel Howard III appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault.  Appellant pleaded guilty and a jury assessed punishment at imprisonment for life.  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).  Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief.  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. 

Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised issues concerning sufficiency of the evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.  We have considered counsel’s brief and Appellant’s pro se 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 August 25, 2010.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)