NO. 12-14-00045-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
TIMOTHY DALE WOOD, § APPEAL FROM THE 173RD
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Timothy Dale Wood appeals his conviction for fraudulent use or possession of
identifying information. Appellant entered a guilty plea, and the trial court sentenced him to ten
years of imprisonment. Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief in support of
that motion 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.
ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous, stating that she
has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no
reversible error upon which an appeal can be predicated. She further relates that she 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 considered counsel’s brief and conducted our own
1
Counsel for Appellant has certified that she provided Appellant with a copy of this brief. Appellant was
given time to file his own brief in this cause. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have not received
a pro se brief.
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 carried the motion for consideration with the merits.
Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion to withdraw is
hereby granted, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at
408-09.
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. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from
the date of this opinion or the date the last timely filed motion for rehearing is overruled by this
court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with the
clerk for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in the case. 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 July 8, 2015.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
2
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
JULY 8, 2015
NO. 12-14-00045-CR
TIMOTHY DALE WOOD,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
Appeal from the 173rd District Court
of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. B-20,140)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein,
and the same being considered, it is the opinion of the court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below
for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.