Seneca Desmond Bowman v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 173rd District Court of Henderson County

NO. 12-02-00062-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

SENACA DESMOND BOWMAN,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 173RD

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM

Appellant Senaca Desmond Bowman was convicted by a jury of the first degree felony offense of Aggravated Assault. After finding one enhancement paragraph true, the jury assessed punishment at twenty-five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, and a fine of $1,000.00. The trial court entered judgment, and Appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal. We affirm.

Appellant's counsel, in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated. He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case. 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 unable to present any arguable points of error. (1) We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (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 judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

 

Opinion delivered May 30, 2003.

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

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1. Counsel for Appellant provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and 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.