Tommie Wayne Davis, Jr. v. the State of Texas

NOS. 12-22-00317-CR
12-22-00318-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TOMMIE WAYNE DAVIS, JR., § APPEALS FROM THE 114TH
APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Tommie Wayne Davis, Jr. appeals following the revocation of his deferred adjudication
community supervision in two separate causes. 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 separate indictments with accident involving injury and
tampering with physical evidence. Pursuant to plea bargains, Appellant pleaded “guilty” as
charged in each cause. For each offense, the trial court deferred finding Appellant “guilty” and
placed him on community supervision for five years.
Subsequently, the State filed motions to revoke Appellant’s community supervision and
to adjudicate his guilt in each case, alleging that Appellant violated certain terms and conditions
thereof. Specifically, the State contended that Appellant violated the terms of his community
supervision, in pertinent part as follows: (1) he failed to report and submit to a random urinalysis
on multiple occasions; (2) he failed satisfactorily to perform community service restitution as
ordered for multiple months; and (3) he failed to pay the ordered amount of court costs and fees
for multiple months.
A hearing was conducted on the State’s motions, at which Appellant pleaded “true” to the
violations alleged therein. The State declined to put on evidence. Appellant presented evidence
from witnesses in support of his request that the trial court allow him to remain on community
supervision. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Appellant violated the
terms and conditions of his community supervision as alleged in each of the State’s motions.
Thereafter, it revoked Appellant’s community supervision in each cause, adjudicated him
“guilty” of accident involving injury and tampering with physical evidence, and sentenced him to
imprisonment for five years and ten years respectively. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.
State. Appellant’s counsel states that she 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 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 likewise have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none.

CONCLUSION
As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s
counsel 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 done so and finding no reversible error, we grant Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave
to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
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

1
In compliance with Kelly v. State, Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief,
notified Appellant of her motion to withdraw as counsel, informed Appellant of his right to file a pro se response,
and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review of the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d
313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant was given time to file his own brief. The time for filing such a brief
expired and no pro se brief has been filed.

2
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 either the date of this
opinion or the date that the last timely motion for rehearing 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.
Opinion delivered July 31, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31, 2023

NO. 12-22-00317-CR

TOMMIE WAYNE DAVIS, JR.,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0796-20)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, for which execution may issue, and that this
decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JULY 31, 2023

NO. 12-22-00318-CR

TOMMIE WAYNE DAVIS, JR.,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-0730-21)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the
judgment.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment
of the court below be in all things affirmed, for which execution may issue, and that this
decision be certified to the court below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.