From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marshall v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
Mar 22, 2006
No. 12-05-00296-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 22, 2006)

Opinion

No. 12-05-00296-CR

Opinion delivered March 22, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.

Appeal from the 145th Judicial District Court of Nacogdoches County, Texas.

Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and DeVASTO, J.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


Mark Marshall appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, 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). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance, specifically between 200 and 400 grams of methamphetamine, with intent to deliver. Appellant pleaded guilty as charged, and a trial on punishment was conducted. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for ten years. 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 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. We have likewise 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. 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.


Summaries of

Marshall v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler
Mar 22, 2006
No. 12-05-00296-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 22, 2006)
Case details for

Marshall v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARK MARSHALL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Twelfth District, Tyler

Date published: Mar 22, 2006

Citations

No. 12-05-00296-CR (Tex. App. Mar. 22, 2006)