Opinion
No. 08-16-00313-CR
06-27-2018
DEREK HASSAN PRIDE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
Appeal from the 112th District Court of Upton County, Texas (TC# 15-09-U1083-DPO) MEMORANDUM OPINION
Derek Hassan Pride appeals his conviction for possession with intent to deliver more than one gram but less than four grams of methamphetamine, enhanced by a prior felony conviction. A jury found Appellant guilty, found the enhancement paragraph true, and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for ninety years. We affirm.
FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why, in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 n.9 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008)("In Texas, an Anders brief need not specifically advance 'arguable' points of error if counsel finds none, but it must provide record references to the facts and procedural history and set out pertinent legal authorities."); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has notified the Court in writing that he has delivered a copy of counsel's brief and the motion to withdraw to Appellant, and he has advised Appellant of his right to review the record, file a pro se brief, and to seek discretionary review. Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 318-20 (Tex.Crim.App. 2014)(setting forth duties of counsel). The Court granted Appellant's motion for access to the appellate record and provided him with a copy of the record. Although we granted Appellant's requests for additional time in which to file his brief, he has not filed a pro se brief.
After carefully reviewing the record and counsel's brief, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice June 27, 2018 Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ. (Do Not Publish)