Opinion
No. 10-01-00286-CR.
Opinion delivered and filed March 10, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 82nd District Court, Robertson County, Texas, Trial Court # 01-02-16,953-CR. Affirmed.
David S. Barron, Bryan, TX, for appellant/relator. John C. Paschall, Robertson County District Attorney, Franklin, TX, for appellee/respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert Earl Morris appeals from his plea-bargained conviction for possession of cocaine in the amount of 4 grams or more but less than 200 grams with intent to deliver. Morris states in his notice of appeal that he intends to appeal the court's pretrial suppression ruling. Morris's counsel filed an Anders brief. Counsel stated in the brief that he would promptly explain to Morris his right to file a pro se brief or other response and advise him that he could obtain a copy of the record from the district clerk. The certificate of service reflects that counsel provided a copy of the brief to Morris. See Sowels v. State, 45 S.W.3d 690, 694 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001, no pet.) (to satisfy Anders requirements, counsel may certify to the Court that counsel has: (1) provided Appellant a copy of the brief; (2) informed Appellant of the right to review the record; and (3) informed Appellant of the right to file a pro se brief or response). The Clerk of this Court also notified Morris that he could file a brief or response, but he has not done so. Counsel concludes that the only "potential source of error" in this case concerns the court's denial of Morris's suppression motion. As counsel notes and the record reflects, law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for a car Morris had been seen driving earlier and in which Morris's wife said she had seen cocaine. The registered owner of the car was Morris's aunt. Morris testified in the suppression hearing that he did not drive the car and that he did not have any ownership interest in the car. Accordingly, Morris did not have standing to challenge the officers' search of his aunt's car. See Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766, 787 (Tex.Crim.App. 2003). Counsel concludes that, other than the potential suppression issue, the appeal presents no issues of arguable merit. This Court has conducted an independent review of the record and has reached the same conclusion. See Sowels, 45 S.W.3d at 691-92. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must advise Morris of our decision and of his right to file a petition for discretionary review. Id. at 694.
Anders v. Cal., 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1400, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).