In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-12-00491-CR 

ALAJUA JAWAN KEMP, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 181st District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 22,416-B; Honorable John Board, Presiding 

 

July 23, 2013 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Following an open plea of guilty, Appellant, Alajua Jawan Kemp, was convicted 

of possession of a controlled substance listed in Penalty Group 1, of four grams or more 

but less than 200 grams, with intent to deliver, in a drug-free zone.

1

 After entering pleas

of true to use of a deadly weapon and committing the offense within 1,000 feet of a day

care, he was sentenced to twenty-five years confinement and assessed a $1,000 fine. 

 1

TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.112(d) (WEST 2010) & § 481.134(c) (WEST SUPP. 2012). The 

possession with intent to deliver offense was a first degree felony. The drug-free zone allegation raised 

the minimum period of confinement to ten years and doubled the maximum fine to $20,000.
2

In presenting this appeal, counsel has filed an Anders2 brief in support of a motion to 

withdraw. We grant counsel=s motion and affirm.

In support of his motion to withdraw, counsel certifies he has conducted a 

conscientious examination of the record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no 

potentially plausible basis for reversal of Appellant’s conviction. Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); In re Schulman, 252 

S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.Crim.App. 2008). Counsel candidly discusses why, under the 

controlling authorities, the record supports that conclusion. See High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978). Counsel has demonstrated that he has 

complied with the requirements of Anders and In re Schulman by (1) providing a copy of 

the brief to Appellant, (2) notifying him of his right to file a pro se response if he desired 

to do so, and (3) informing him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary 

review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408.3

 By letter, this Court granted Appellant an 

opportunity to exercise his right to file a response to counsel=s brief, should he be so 

inclined. Id. at 409 n.23. Appellant did file a response. By letter, the State advised that 

it would not file a brief unless this Court determines the appeal has merit.

While on patrol late one night, Thomas Callahan, a narcotics agent, and Officer 

Martin Morgan stopped Appellant for making a wide right turn, a traffic violation. They 

 2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

3

Notwithstanding that Appellant was informed of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review 

upon execution of the Trial Court=s Certification of Defendant=s Right of Appeal, counsel must comply with 

Rule 48.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides that counsel shall within five days 

after this opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the opinion and judgment together with 

notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 408 

n.22 & at 411 n.35.
3

approached the vehicle and observed a male passenger in Appellant’s vehicle. Morgan 

approached the driver’s side and Callahan the passenger side. The passenger was

described as very nervous. Callahan smelled burning marihuana and observed a blunt 

cigar in the ashtray.4

 Morgan was on the driver’s side of the vehicle speaking with 

Appellant. Both Appellant and the passenger were asked to exit the vehicle, arrested 

for possession of marihuana and administered their rights.

The two suspects were separated and Callahan and Morgan then proceeded to 

conduct an inventory of the vehicle. The inventory revealed a large amount of 

miscellaneous controlled substances, weapons and scales.

5

 Callahan testified that the 

manner in which the narcotics were packaged indicated drug dealing and distribution. A 

gun found underneath the driver’s seat had been reported stolen in 2010.6

 A .22 caliber 

gun was also found in the glove compartment. Callahan concluded his direct testimony 

by testifying that the traffic stop occurred within a 1,000 foot radius of a day care for 

children.

During the inventory, Appellant denied ownership of some of the narcotics, 

claiming he was holding them for other persons (as collateral for money owed). He did 

admit to dealing drugs in the past. The weapons, he explained, were for protection. 

Other law enforcement witnesses offered testimony of Appellant’s priors from 2008, 

which involved weapons. 

 4

Appellant later admitted the marihuana cigar was his.

5

Agent Callahan found Tylenol 3 and Xanax, both prescription medications for which Appellant did not 

have a prescription, methamphetamine, cocaine packaged in small bags and a large bag of marihuana.

6

Appellant informed Agent Callahan the gun was underneath the driver’s seat.
4

Appellant, in his mid-twenties, testified that he is married, father to a very young 

daughter and stepfather to a son. He also testified that since his arrest he’s “a totally 

changed person.” He is employed and no longer associates with individuals from his 

past. Appellant’s mother testified that after Appellant’s daughter was born, he became 

more responsible and seems happier.

By the Anders brief, counsel evaluates Appellant’s guilty plea hearing and

punishment phase, as well as trial counsel’s representation. He concludes that 

reversible error is not presented. While counsel does note that the trial court made no 

specific findings as to either the deadly weapon or the drug-free zone, a review of the 

record reveals that, not only did the trial judge find Appellant guilty as charged in an 

indictment which alleged both aggravating factors, he specifically discussed both the 

deadly weapon finding and the drug-free zone in announcing the reasons for his ruling. 

Furthermore, as counsel concedes, the lack of those findings would have been

harmless given that Appellant’s sentence is permitted without those findings.

We have independently examined the entire record to determine whether there 

are any non-frivolous issues which might support the appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409;

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such 

issues. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). After reviewing 

the record, counsel=s brief and the pro se response, we agree with counsel that there is 

no plausible basis for reversal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.Crim.App. 

2005). 
5

Conclusion

The trial court’s judgment is affirmed and counsel's motion to withdraw is 

granted. 

Patrick A. Pirtle

 Justice

Do not publish.