Myron Antron Mosley v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 8th District Court of Rains County

NOS. 12-05-00126-CR

12-05-00127-CR

12-05-00128-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MYRON ANTRON MOSLEY, APPEAL FROM THE EIGHTH

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE RAINS COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Myron Antron Mosley appeals the revocation of his deferred adjudication probation following three convictions for sexual assault. After revoking Appellant s probation, the trial court sentenced him to multiple terms of imprisonment. 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). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

Background

Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, Appellant pleaded guilty to three charges of sexual assault. The court deferred finding Appellant guilty and placed him on probation for seven years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Appellant s probation and to proceed to adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated certain terms of his probation. Appellant pleaded true to violating two conditions of his probation in each cause as alleged in the State s motion. Subsequently, a hearing was conducted on the State s motion, and the trial court found that Appellant had violated certain terms of his probation as alleged. The trial court thereafter revoked Appellant s probation, proceeded to adjudicate Appellant guilty, and assessed Appellant s punishment as follows: imprisonment for twenty years in cause number 3878;1 imprisonment for twenty years in cause number 3879;2 and imprisonment for ten years in cause number 3880.3 The trial court ordered that the sentences in cause numbers 3878 and 3879 run concurrently and that the sentence in cause number 3880 run consecutively to the two twenty year sentences. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

Appellant s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. 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 Anders 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.

Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised issues concerning (1) his unknowing acceptance of plea bargains related to two of his underlying convictions; (2) the prosecutor s intentionally eliciting perjured testimony in one of the underlying trials, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel in the underlying trials, at the hearing on the State s motion, and on appeal. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

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 this matter. Having done so and having found 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 April 28, 2006.

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

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1 Appellate cause number 12-05-00126-CR.

2 Appellate cause number 12-05-00127-CR.

3 Appellate cause number 12-05-00128-CR.