## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 20

- 00117

- CR

WALLACE MURRAY HADLEY , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 115 th District Court

Marion County, Texas

Trial Court No. F15178

Be fore Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION

Wall ace Murray Hadley pled guilty to possession of a controlled su bstance, cocaine, in

an amount less than one gram 1 and pled true to two enhancement pa r agraphs that alleged two

prior state jail felony convictions. After the State offered evidence supporting the allegations,

the trial court found Hadley guilty and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. While the

trial court had plenary jurisdiction

, it convened a second hearing in which it found the

enhancement paragraphs true. Hadley appeals his conviction and sentence.

Hadley ’ s appellate counsel filed a brief that ou tlined the procedural history of the case,

provided a detailed summary of the ev ide nce elicited during the trial court proceedings, and

stated that counsel found no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Meeting the requirements of

Anders v. California , counsel has provided a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating

why th ere are no arguable grounds to be advanced. Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 743

– 44

(1967); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding);

Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

– 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); High v. State

, 573 S.W.2d

807, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).

Hadley ’ s counsel filed a motion with this Court seeking to withdraw as counsel in this

appeal and provi ded Hadley with a copy of the brief and the motion to withdraw. His counsel

also informed Ha dley of his right to review the record and to file a pro se response and provided

Hadley with a copy of the record. On June 21, 2021, Hadley filed a pro se response to the

Anders brief that did not assert any reversible trial court error.

1 See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.115(b).3

We have reviewe d th e entire appellate record and have independently determined that no

reversible err or exists. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 2

Scott E. Stevens

Justice

D ate Submitted: July 12, 2021

Date Decided: Jul y 20 , 2021

Do Not Publish

2 Since we agree that this case presents no reversible error, we also, in accordance with Anders , grant counsel’s request to withdraw fro m further representation of appellant in this case. See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should appellant desire to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, appellant must either retai n a n attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for d iscretionary review (1) must be filed within thirty days from either the date of this opinion or the date on which the last tim el y motion for rehearing was overruled by this Court,

see T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2, (2) must be filed with the clerk of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, see T EX . R. A PP

. P. 68.3, and (3) should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules o f Ap pellate Procedure, see T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4.