NO. 12-06-00261-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
JIMMY GAMBLE, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Jimmy Gamble appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. 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). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.
Background
Appellant was charged by indictment with burglary of a habitation and pleaded “not guilty.” The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Following the presentation of evidence, the jury found Appellant “guilty” as charged. After a trial on punishment was conducted, the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for life. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.
Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Appellant’s counsel states that she 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. 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. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s Anders 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.
Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised the following issues: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel and (2) ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
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 having found 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 June 29, 2007.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)