Paul Lawrence White v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 31, 2006
• Docket: 12-06-00053-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

                                                                                                        NO. 12-06-00053-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

PAUL LAWRENCE WHITE,          §                      APPEAL FROM THE SECOND

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Paul Lawrence White appeals his conviction for the offense of arson.  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 has not filed a brief.  We affirm.

Background

            Appellant pleaded guilty to the second degree felony offense of arson.  Adjudication of guilt was deferred, and Appellant was placed on community supervision.  Several years later, the State made application to revoke his community supervision.  The State alleged that Appellant had failed to perform community service as ordered and failed to report to his probation officer.  A hearing was held, and Appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations.  The trial court found the allegations to be true and found Appellant guilty.  Thereafter the court assessed punishment at twelve years of imprisonment.  This appeal followed.

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.

            We have considered the brief submitted by Appellant’s counsel and have conducted our own independent review of the record.  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 found no reversible error.  See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Conclusion

            As required, Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw.  See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).  After considering the record and the brief and having found no reversible error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court and grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

Opinion delivered August 31, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)