NO. 12-07-00078-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
LARRY LEA LONG, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Larry Long appeals the revocation of his community supervision and subsequent conviction of indecency with a child, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. 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
Appellant was charged by indictment with indecency with a child and pleaded “guilty.” The trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and placed him on community supervision for five years.
Thereafter, the State filed an amended motion to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and to proceed to final adjudication, alleging that Appellant had violated certain terms of his community supervision. By its motion, the State alleged that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision as follows: (1) Appellant had sexual intercourse with H.S., a child younger than fourteen years of age, on September 30, 2006; (2) Appellant committed the crime of driving while intoxicated in Gregg County, Texas on or about November 1, 2006; and (3) Appellant had contact with H.S., a minor child, without an approved chaperone being present, on or about September 30, 2006.
Subsequently, a hearing was held on the State’s motion. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegation that he committed the crime of driving while intoxicated, but pleaded “not true” to the remaining allegations. Ultimately, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision as alleged. Thereafter, the trial court revoked Appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of indecency with a child, and assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for twenty years. This appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
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). 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 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. Having done so and finding 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 November 30, 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.