
    Inez PEREZ, Jr., Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
    No. 12-12-00370-CR.
    Court of Appeals of Texas, Tyler.
    July 31, 2013.
    Carey Jensen, Asst. District Attorney, Lufkin, TX, for State.
    Stephen C. Taylor, Conroe, TX, for Appellant.
    Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.
   MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Inez Perez, Jr. appeals his conviction for driving while intoxicated, third offense or more, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for ten 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). Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief. We affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged by indictment with driving while intoxicated, third offense or more. Appellant pleaded “guilty” as charged, and the matter proceeded to a bench trial on punishment. Ultimately, the trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for ten years. This appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders y. California

Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v. State. 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. [Panel Op.] 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.

Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised the following issues: (1) the trial court failed to properly admonish him concerning the range of punishment; (2) his “guilty” plea was not entered voluntarily; and (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We have 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. See also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the motion for consideration with the merits. Having doiie 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.

As a result of our disposition of this case, Appellant’s 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 review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, he must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on his behalf or he must file a petition for discretionary review pro se. 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 the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Tex.R.App. P. 68.3(a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.4. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n. 22.  