In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00206-CR 

GARY WAYNE FINLEY, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 100th District Court 

Carson County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 4384, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding 

 

April 24, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Appellant, Gary Wayne Finley, was charged by complaint and information1 with 

the offense of possession of marijuana, in an amount of less than 50 pounds and more 

than five pounds.2 Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, appellant entered a plea 

of guilty to the charged offense. Appellant was placed on deferred adjudication 

community supervision for a period of three years. The State subsequently filed a 

 

1

The record reflects that appellant waived the requirement of a grand jury indictment.

2

See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 481.121(a), (b)(4) (West 2010)
2

motion to adjudicate appellant’s offense. At the hearing on the State’s motion to 

adjudicate, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations. The court, after hearing 

evidence regarding punishment, sentenced appellant to serve eight years’ confinement 

in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant gave 

notice of appeal. We will affirm.

Appellant’s attorney has filed an Anders brief and a motion to withdraw. Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed. 2d 498 (1967). In support of his 

motion to withdraw, counsel certifies that he has diligently reviewed the record, and in 

his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal can be 

predicated. Id. at 744–45. In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1978), counsel has candidly discussed why, under the controlling authorities, 

there is no error in the trial court’s judgment. Additionally, counsel has certified that he 

has provided appellant a copy of the Anders brief and motion to withdraw, and 

appropriately advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response in this matter. 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The Court has also 

advised appellant of his right to file a pro se response. Appellant has not filed a 

response. By his Anders brief, counsel reviewed all grounds that could possibly support 

an appeal, but concludes the appeal is frivolous. We have reviewed these grounds and 

made an independent review of the entire record to determine whether there are any

arguable grounds which might support an appeal. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2005). We have found no such arguable grounds and agree with counsel that the 

appeal is frivolous.
3

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is hereby granted, and the trial court’s 

judgment is affirmed.3

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

Do not publish.

 

 

3 Counsel shall, within five days after this opinion is handed down, send his client 

a copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of appellant=s right to file a 

pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.