NO. 12-11-00050-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
WILLIAM CRAIG DEMPSEY,
APPELLANT
§
APPEAL FROM THE THIRD
V.
§
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE
§
ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
William Craig Dempsey appeals his conviction for bribery. Appellantâs counsel has 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 dismiss the
appeal.
BACKGROUND
On April 3, 2009, an Angelina County grand jury returned an indictment against Appellant
alleging, in two counts, that he had committed the offense of bribery, a second degree felony.1 In
September 2009, the parties reached a plea agreement in which Appellant agreed to plead guilty to
one count of bribery, and the State agreed to dismiss the other count. The trial court accepted
Appellantâs plea, deferred adjudication of his guilt, and placed him on community supervision for
a period of five years. In March 2010, the State filed a motion to proceed to adjudication alleging
that Appellant had committed a new criminal offense. However, the parties were able to reach an
agreement to resolve that alleged violation, and Appellant continued on community supervision.
1
See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 36.02 (West 2011).
1
In June 2010, the State again filed a motion to proceed to adjudication, alleging that
Appellant had committed a criminal offense and that he had failed to pay fees, keep appointments,
and timely perform his community service obligations. The trial court held a hearing on the
Stateâs motion in January 2011. The trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms of his
community supervision, found him guilty as charged, and assessed a sentence of imprisonment for
twenty years. 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 diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the
facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.
Crim. App. 1978), counselâs brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural
history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for
appeal.2 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80,
109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988).
We have considered counselâs brief and have 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, Appellantâs 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 Appellantâs counsel that the appeal
is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we
dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09 (âAfter the completion of these
four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the
attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be
plausible grounds for appeal.â).
Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the
2
Counsel for Appellant states in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief.
Appellant was given time to file her own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired and we have
received no pro se brief.
2
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 after the date of this opinion or after the date
this court overrules the last timely motion for rehearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a). Any
petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of 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 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 issued November 23, 2011.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
3
