No. 12-04-00241-CR
Opinion delivered January 31, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 273rd Judicial District Court of Shelby County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and DeVASTO, J.
PER CURIAM.
Michael Jerome Cleveland appeals his conviction for one count of delivery of a controlled substance, two counts of possession of a controlled substance, and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. Appellant was sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment as a result of his convictions. 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 with one count of delivery of a controlled substance, three counts of possession of a controlled substance, and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon. Appellant pleaded "not guilty," and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. Ultimately, the jury found Appellant guilty as charged of delivery of a phencyclidine, possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of phencyclidine, and possession of cocaine. The jury found Appellant not guilty of the charge of possession of marijuana. The jury assessed punishment as follows: imprisonment for eighty years for delivery of phencyclidine; imprisonment for eighty years for possession of phencyclidine; imprisonment for ten years for felon in possession of a firearm; and imprisonment for one hundred eighty days for possession of cocaine. The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed. ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO ANDERS V. CALIFORNIA
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'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. 1978), Appellant's Anders 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 three issues: (1) legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence; (2) entrapment; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel. We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none. See Bledsoe v. State , No. PD-300-04, 2005 WL 3057799, at *3 (Tex.Crim.App. Nov. 16, 2005). 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. We carried the motion for consideration with our consideration of this matter. Having done 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.