## NO. 12

- 23

- 00221

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

KOURTNEY JOHMAR AN T

HONY
, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 420TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

ME MORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

Kourtney Johmar Anthony appeals h is conviction for possession of a controlled

substa nce

. Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S.

738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967), and Gai nous v. State , 436 S .W .2d 137 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1969). We affir m

.

B ACKGROUND
Appellant was charged by indictm ent with possession of four or more but less than 200
grams of methamphetamine

. 1 Appellant pleaded “ not guilty ,” and the matter proceeded to a

be nch trial

. At trial, the evidence showed that officers with the Nacogdoches Police Department
responded to a criminal trespass call a gainst Appellant. After the officers contacted and
identified Appellant, d ispatch er s informed the m that he had an outstan ding warrant for

1 A secon d

- degree felony punishable by imprisonment for a term not m ore than twenty or less than two years, and a possible fine not to exceed $10,000.00. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. §§ 481.102 ( 6 ) (West
S upp. 2023 ); 481.115 ( a )

, ( d) (West Supp. 2023 ); T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.3 3 (West 2019 ).2 possession of a controlled substance

. A subsequent search of Appellant’s person incident to his

arrest on the warrant revealed multiple controlled substances, including one later determined to

be 4.30 grams of methamphetamine.

The trial court found Appellant “guilty” as charged and ordered a presentence

investigation report

. After a bench tria l on punishment , the court assessed hi s punishment at
imprisonment for a term of eleven years

. This appeal followed.

A NALYSIS P URSUANT TO A NDERS V

. C ALIFORNIA
Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California and Gainous v.

State

. Appellant’s counsel relates tha t he carefully examined the record and found no error that

could support an appeal

. In compliance with High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 81 2 (Tex. Crim.

App. [ Panel Op.] 1978), Appellant’s brief contains a professional evalu ation of the recor d

demonstrating why ther e are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 2 W e conducted a n independent review of the record in this cas e and found no reversible error

. See i d. We conclude

that the appeal is wholly frivolous

. See i d.

C ONCLU SION

As required by Anders and Stafford v. St a te , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 ( T ex

. Crim. App.

1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw

. See also In re Schulman

, 252

S.W.3d 403 , 407 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). We carried the mot i on for

consideration with the merits. Having done so and finding no reversibl e error , we grant

counsel’s motion for leave to withdra w and affirm the trial court’s judgment

. Appellant’s counsel has a duty to , w ithin five days of the date of this opinion, s end a
copy of the opinion and judgment to Appellant and advise h im of h is right to file a petition fo r discretionary review. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 48.4; In re Schulman

, 252 S.W.3 d at 411 n .35. Should
Appellant wish to seek review of this case by the Texa s Co urt of Criminal Appeals, he must

either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review on h is behalf or he must file a

pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed

2 In compliance with Ke lly v. State , Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief, notified Appellant of h is motion to withdraw as counsel, informe d Appellant of h is right to file a pro se response, and took concrete measures to facilitate Appellant’s review o f the appellate record. See Kell y v. State

, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Cr im. App. 2014).3 within thirty days f ro m eit her the date of this opinion or the da t e that the last timely motion for
rehearing was overruled by this court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 68.2( a)

. Any petition for

discretionary review must be filed with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX

. R. A PP

.
P. 6 8. 3 ( a). Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule

68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.22.

Opinion delivered Ju ly 3 , 2024.

P anel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Ho yle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JU LY 3 , 2024

NO. 12

- 23

- 00221

- CR

KOURTNEY JOHMAR ANTHONY , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF T EXAS , A ppellee

Appeal from the 420th District Court

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F2125451 )

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appella te record and briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there w as no error in the
judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED

, and DECREED that the
judgment of the court below be in all things affirmed

, and th at this decision be certified to the

court below for observ ance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of W orthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.