Waylon Tyrele Wickware v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 241st District Court of Smith County

NO. 12-06-00196-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WAYLON TYRELE WICKWARE, APPEAL FROM THE 241ST

APPELLANT

V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Waylon Tyrele Wickware appeals from the revocation of his deferred adjudication probation in an aggravated assault case. 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 the trial court s judgment.

Background

On August 19, 2005, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, stipulated to the evidence, and pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated assault. Without a plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced him to ten years of deferred adjudication probation. On May 2, 2006, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the application. After a hearing, the trial court found Appellant violated the terms of his probation, granted the State s application, and found Appellant guilty of the 2005 aggravated assault. The trial court sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

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

The trial court s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered June 20, 2007.

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