Richard Charles Sims v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 173rd District Court of Henderson County

NO. 12-04-00073-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RICHARD CHARLES SIMS, APPEAL FROM THE 173RD

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Charles Sims ( Appellant ) pleaded guilty to felony driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, probated for eight years. The State filed a motion to revoke Appellant s probation, and Appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the motion. The trial court accepted Appellant s plea and sentenced him to five years of imprisonment. Appellant s counsel has filed an Anders // brief, stating that the record does not present any meritorious points for appeal, and Appellant has not filed a brief pro se. We affirm.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969), stating that he 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. 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, 812 (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 raise any arguable issues for appeal. We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

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 granted and the trial court s judgment is affirmed.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

Opinion delivered September 30, 2004.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)