Opinion
NO. 12-19-00042-CR
11-27-2019
CALE REGAN CASSITY, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
APPEAL FROM THE 7TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT SMITH COUNTY , TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cale Regan Cassity appeals the trial court's judgment adjudicating him guilty of possession of a controlled substance. 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 possession of methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams with intent to deliver. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, he pleaded "guilty" to possession of methamphetamine in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams, and the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on community supervision for a term of ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging that Appellant violated his community supervision conditions by failing to report to his supervision officer and pay his supervision fee for thirteen months. Appellant stipulated to evidence and pleaded "true" to the allegations. After a hearing, at which there was no testimony as to the allegations in the State's motion, the trial court found the allegations true, found Appellant guilty, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twelve years. This appeal followed.
A first-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(a), (d) (West 2017).
A second-degree felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.115(a), (d) (West 2017).
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 relates that he has reviewed the record and found no arguable, nonfrivolous issues for our review. In compliance with High v. State ,573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant's brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.
In compliance with Kelly v. State , Appellant's counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of his 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. 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 has expired and no pro se brief has been filed.
We have considered counsel's brief and conducted our own independent review of the record. Id. at 811. We have found no reversible error.
CONCLUSION
As required by Anders and Stafford v. State ,813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (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 done so, we agree with Appellant's counsel that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Accordingly, we grant counsel's motion for leave to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
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 pro se petition for discretionary review. 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(a). 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 Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22. Opinion delivered November 27, 2019.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
Appeal from the 7th District Court of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007-1873-06)
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, 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.