Tyrra Deggral Simmons v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 114th District Court of Smith County (per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOS. 12-11-00393-CR 12-11-00394-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS TYRRA DEGGRAL SIMMONS, APPELLANT § APPEALS FROM THE 114TH V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Tyrra Deggral Simmons appeals his convictions for delivery of a controlled substance. Appellant s counsel has filed a brief asserting 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 In 2006, a grand jury returned two separate indictments against Appellant for delivery of a controlled substance, second degree felonies as alleged. Following his plea of guilty to each offense, Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years on one of the offenses. On the other offense, Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to ten years of imprisonment, suspended for a period of ten years. In 2011, the State filed an application to proceed to final adjudication in the first case and an application to revoke Appellant s community supervision in the second case. The applications alleged that Appellant possessed a controlled substance, used a controlled substance, failed to obtain a valid driver s license, and failed to provide copies of his prescriptions to his community supervision officer. In the first case, there was an additional allegation that Appellant filed to pay his monthly supervision fee. Appellant pleaded true to the failure to obtain a valid driver s license ground in both cases, and the failure to pay his monthly supervision fee in the first case. Appellant pleaded not true to the remaining allegations in the State s motions. After a hearing on the applications, the trial court found all of the allegations in the State s applications to be true, adjudicated Appellant s guilt in the first case, revoked his community supervision in both cases, and sentence him to ten years of imprisonment in each case, to be served concurrently. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. 1 See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have considered counsel s brief and have conducted our own independent review of the record. We have found no reversible error. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). CONCLUSION As required, Appellant s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We are in agreement with Appellant s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we affirm 1 Counsel for Appellant certified that he provided Appellant with a copy of his brief and informed Appellant that he had the right to file his own brief. Appellant was given time to file his own brief, but the time for filing such a brief has expired and we have received no pro se brief. 2 the judgment of the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). Counsel has a duty to, within five days of the date of this opinion, send a copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise him of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.35. Should Appellant wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or he must file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.4; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered September 12, 2012. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 3 COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER 12, 2012 NOS. 12-11-00393-CR 12-11-00394-CR TYRRA DEGGRAL SIMMONS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Appeals from the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.Nos. 114-1310-06; 114-1311-06) THESE CAUSES came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there were no errors in the judgments. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Appellant=s counsel s motion to withdraw is granted, the judgments of the court below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.