Donald Lee Meadows v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-05-00400-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DONALD MEADOWS, APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Donald Meadows appeals his conviction for robbery. 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 aggravated robbery and pleaded not guilty. The matter proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found Appellant guilty of the lesser included offense of robbery. The jury assessed punishment at eleven years of imprisonment. This appeal followed.

Analysis pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that she 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 Appellant s brief, it is apparent that his 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 meritorious issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

Conclusion

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with the merits of the appeal. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered December 1, 2006.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Counsel for Appellant certified that she would provide Appellant with a copy of the brief. On June 21, 2006, this court notified Appellant of his right to file a pro se brief and informed him of the deadline for filing the brief. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief.