NO. 07-07 -006 3-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL C JU LY26, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ ERIC FRANCIS LONG, APP ELL ANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 26 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF B EL L COU NT Y; TH NO . 590 98; H ON ORABLE MA RTH A J . TR UD O, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Er icF ra nci s L ong , app eal s his conv icti on for posses si on of

a controll ed subst ance ov er 1 gram but less th an 4 g rams a nd se nte n c e of six y ears incarce ration in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Texas Dep ar tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. Ap pel lan t’ s c ounse l has filed a br ief i n c ompli ance w it h Ande rsv . C ali forni a, 38 6 U .S. 7 3 8 , 744 -4 5, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 493 (1 967) , and G ain ous v . St ate, 436 S. W .2d 1 37, 1 38 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 19 69 )
. W e affi r m.2

App ell an t pl ea d g ui l ty to th e offen s e of po s s es s i on of a c on trol s ub s ta nc e ov er 1 gram but less th an 4 g rams wi tho ut a ple a ba rg ain. Aft er receivi ng the plea, the trial court received th e p re -s e nte nce investigation rep ort and sente nced app ellantto six y ears inc arcerati on. There w ere no pre- tr ial moti ons heard by the cour t pr ior to the p lea bei ng entered. Appel lan t ’ s c ounse l has filed a br ief, i n c ompli ance w it h Ande rsand Gai nous, st ati ng that he has dili g entl y

rev iewed the appell ate rec ord and appl ic abl e law and is of the opi nio n that the record reflect s n o rev ersi ble er ro r upon w hic h an appeal ca n arg uabl y be predi cat ed. Cou nsel thusco ncl udes that the a ppeal i s f ri v olo us. Cou nsel ’s br ief present s a s ummatio n of

the procedu ra l his tor

y of the cas e and dis cus ses w hy , und er the cont ro ll ing author it ies , t here i s n o rev ersi ble er ro r in the t ri al cour t proceed in gs a n d j udg ment. See Hig h v . Stat e, 57 3 S.W .2d 807 , 813 (Tex.Crim.App . 197 8). Cou nsel has att ached an e x hib itsh ow ing thata copy of the Anders bri ef and moti on to w it hdraw

hav e been forwarded t o appel lan t and thatco unsel has appropr iat ely adv is ed appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o rev iew the re cord and file a pr o s e resp o n se to c ounse l’ s mot ion and br ief. The cl er k o f this co urt h a s als o adv is ed appe ll ant b y l etter of hisr ig ht t o fil e a re spons e to couns el’ s b ri ef. Appel lan t hasnot filed a respon se. W e h a ve m a de an ind ependentexaminat ion of the record to deter mine w hether there are any

non- frivolo us g ro unds upon w hic h an appeal co uld arg uabl y be founded. S e e P e n s o n v. O h io , 4 8 8 U. S
. 7 5 , 8 0 , 1 0 9 S
. Ct
. 3 4 6 , 1 0 2 L
. E d
. 2 d 3 0 0 (1 9 8 8 ); S t a f fo rd v. Sta te, 8 13 S. W .2d 503 , 511 (Tex.Crim.App . 199 1). W e ha v e foun d no such ground s.In grant ing c o u n s e l’s motion to w ithdra w , howev er, w e rem ind cou nsel to insure 1 that he has co mpli ed w it h the “educ ati onal ” duty to infor m appel lan t of hi s r ig ht t o fil e a pro se peti ti on for dis creti onar y rev iew in the Cou rt of C ri minal Appea ls
. Ex par te O w ens, 206 S.W .3d 6 70 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)
. 3 Appel lan t’ s couns el has mov ed for lea v e to w it hdraw . See J ohnso n v . St ate, 885 S.W .2 d 6 4 1 , 6 45 ( Tex .App. –W aco 1994, w ri t ref’d)
. W e c ar ri ed th e moti on for cons ide ra ti on w it h the mer it s of t he appeal
. Hav ing cons ide re d the meri ts and findi ng no rev ersible error, app ellant ’s counse l’s m otion t o w ithdra w is grant ed a nd th e trial court’s

1 jud g ment i s a ff ir med.
Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.