From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKinney v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland
May 27, 2004
No. 11-03-00329-CR (Tex. App. May. 27, 2004)

Opinion

No. 11-03-00329-CR

May 27, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex.R.App.P. 47.2(b).

Appeal from Harris County.

Panel consists of: ARNOT, C.J., and WRIGHT, J., and McCALL, J.


Opinion


This is an appeal from a judgment adjudicating guilt. Kieth Jamaar McKinney originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of codeine with an aggregate weight of more than 400 grams. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for 6 years, and assessed a $500 fine. After a hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and imposed a sentence of confinement for 10 years. We affirm. Appellant's court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he reviews the proceedings in the trial court and the applicable law. Counsel states that he is unable to submit any arguable grounds of error. Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App. 1974); and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App. 1969). Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2004) precludes an appeal challenging the trial court's determination to proceed with the adjudication of guilt. Phynes v. State, 828 S.W.2d 1 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992); Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App. 1992). The record reflects no reversible error in the punishment phase of the hearing or in any of the trial court's determinations subject to challenge on appeal. We agree that the appeal is without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.


Summaries of

McKinney v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland
May 27, 2004
No. 11-03-00329-CR (Tex. App. May. 27, 2004)
Case details for

McKinney v. State

Case Details

Full title:KIETH JAMAAR McKINNEY, Appellant v. STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District, Eastland

Date published: May 27, 2004

Citations

No. 11-03-00329-CR (Tex. App. May. 27, 2004)