NOS. 12-05-00357-CR
12-05-00366-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
CARL CECIL JONES, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Carl Cecil Jones appeals from the revocation of his probation in two aggravated assault cases. 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
On July 2, 2004, Appellant waived his right to a jury trial, stipulated to the evidence, and pleaded guilty to two offenses of aggravated assault. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced him to ten years of deferred adjudication probation in each case. On July 21, 2005, the State filed motions to proceed to final adjudication in each case. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in two paragraphs of the State’s motions. After a hearing, the trial court found Appellant violated the terms of his probation, revoked his probation, and found him guilty of aggravated assault in both cases. The trial court sentenced him to ten years of imprisonment in cause number 241-0490-04 and five years of imprisonment in cause number 241-0491-04.
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 records and is of the opinion that the records reflect 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 these cases. 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 cases and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.1 We have likewise reviewed the records 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 judgments are affirmed.
Opinion delivered April 28, 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 these causes. The time for filing such a brief has expired, and we have received no pro se brief.