Adam Cameron v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 30, 2010
• Docket: 12-09-00259-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-09-00259-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ADAM CAMERON, § APPEAL FROM THE 2ND APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Adam Cameron appeals his conviction for aggravated sexual assault. Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief asserting 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 dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND A Cherokee County grand jury indicted Appellant for the felony offense of aggravated sexual assault. In the indictment, the grand jury alleged that Appellant penetrated the sexual organ of a girl younger than the age of fourteen with his sexual organ.1 Appellant pleaded not guilty at his trial. The State offered evidence including the complaining witness’s testimony, the testimony of a police officer, recordings of telephone calls made by Appellant, and the testimony of a nurse who examined the complaining witness. The jury found Appellant guilty as charged. The trial court, after conducting a sentencing hearing, sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for twelve years. This appeal followed.

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.021(a)(2)(B) (Vernon Supp. 2009). ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA Appellant=s counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous. Counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that he is well acquainted with the facts of this case. In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), counsel=s brief presents a thorough chronological summary of the procedural history of the case and further states that counsel is unable to present any arguable issues for appeal. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 745, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 350, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988). We have likewise reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.

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 are in agreement with Appellant’s counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, his motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted, and we dismiss this appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408-09 (“After the completion of these four steps, the court of appeals will either agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous, grant the attorney=s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal, or it will determine that there may be plausible grounds for appeal.”). 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. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed within thirty days from the date of either this opinion or the last timely motion for rehearing that was overruled by this court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals along with the rest of the filings in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.3. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 2 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 30, 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)