NO. 12-07-00131-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
RAY KEITH BOYKIN, § APPEAL FROM THE 420TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Ray Keith Boykin appeals his conviction for aggravated assault, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, probated for six 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 aggravated assault and pleaded “not guilty.” Prior to trial, Appellant moved to dismiss the charges against him on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion. The matter proceeded to jury trial. Following the presentation of evidence, the parties rested. During the charge conference, Appellant requested that the trial court charge the jury on the lesser included offense of assault. The trial court denied Appellant’s request. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant guilty as charged. Following a trial on punishment, the jury assessed Appellant’s punishment at imprisonment for three years, probated for six years. 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 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 February 29, 2008.
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. 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.