Karl Shackelford v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-05-00232-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KARL SHACKELFORD, APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Karl Shackelford appeals his conviction for felony driving while intoxicated, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for six years. 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 driving while intoxicated. The charge contained an allegation that Appellant used a motor vehicle as a deadly weapon. The indictment also contained an allegation of a previous conviction of driving while intoxicated. Appellant pleaded guilty as charged and pleaded true to the enhancement allegation. In return, the State agreed to abandon the deadly weapon allegation in the indictment. The trial court conducted a hearing on punishment on July 13, 2005 and ultimately sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for six years. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

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). Appellant s counsel states 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 (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.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 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with our consideration of this matter. Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant s counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted. All other pending motions in this matter are overruled as moot. We affirm the trial court s judgment.

Opinion delivered March 8, 2006.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Counsel for Appellant certified in his motion to withdraw that he provided Appellant with a copy of this brief and that 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.