### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 07 -0 00 61 -C R

______________________________ MARI ON D. CADD EL L , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appea l from the 241st J udicial District Court

Smit h County , Texas Trial Court No. 241-0186- 07

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C
. J. , C a

rt e r an d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Moseley2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Marion D. Caddell appea ls from his jury conviction for delivery of a controlled substance
. See T EX . H EA L TH & S AF ETY C ODE ANN . § 481.112(c) (Ve rnon 2003). Caddell pled "tr ue" to one enhanc ement alleg ation. The jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment and a $10,000.00 fine
. Ca dd e ll w a s r e pr e se nte d b y re ta ine d co un se l at tri a l and by dif fe re nt, a pp ointe d, c ouns e l on

a pp e a l. Appellate c ounsel filed a br ief October 25, 2007, under the mandate of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 3 8 6 U. S. 738 (1967), and Ex parte Se nna , 6 0 6 S. W. 2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 0 ( T e x. Cr im
. Ap p . 1 9 8 0 ) , an d h as
acc ording ly

also fil ed a motion to withdraw. Counsel sent Caddell a c opy of the brie f, as we ll as copies of the cler

k' s and re porter' s rec ords, and a dvised Caddell by letter he beli eves the re a re no arguable c ontentions of err or. He also informed Caddell of his right to re view the r ecor d and file a pro se r esponse. Cadde ll r equeste d an extension of time to file a response . That extension ex pired Dec ember

27, 2007. Caddell has not filed a response , nor has he reque sted an additional extension of time in which to file such a response . Counsel has filed a br ief whic h discusses the re cord a nd revie ws the proc eeding s. Counsel has thus provided a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord demonstrating why , in e ffe ct, there are no
ar g u a b l e g r o u n d s t o b e a dv an c e d , a s r e qu i r e d b y Hi gh v . S tate , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7, 81 2 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p . [ P an el Op .] 1978). Se e als o Sta ffo rd v . S tate , 8 1 3 S. W. 2 d

5 0 3 , 5 1 0 n . 3 ( T e x. Cr im
. App. 19 91 ). Couns e l c on c lud e d f ro m hi s r e vie w o f t

he re c or d th e re is n o a

rgua ble po int of e rr or to support the appe al.Since we ag ree this c ase prese nts no reve rsible err or, we also, in a ccor dance with An de rs , 1 g ra nt c ouns e l' s re qu e st to wi thd ra w fr om fu rt he r re pr e se ntatio n of Ca dd e ll in thi s c a se . No su bs tit ute counsel will be a

ppointed. Should C adde l l wi s h t o seek f urther r eview of

this case by

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Cadde ll must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionar y revie w or Cadde ll must file a pr o se petition for discr etionary revie w. Any

petition for discre tionary revie w must be filed withi n thirty day s from the date of e ither this opinion or the last timely motion for re he ari ngthat w a s o ve rr ule d b y thi s Co ur

t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 6 8
. 2
. A n y p e ti ti o nf

or discretionar

y revie w must be filed with this Court, after which it will be forwa rded to t h e Te x as Court of C riminal Appea ls along with the rest of the filings in this case
. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3. Any petition f

or discretionar

y revie w should c omply with the require ments of Rule 68.4 of the Te x as Rules of Appellate Procedur e. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4. 3 Counsel further

states in the brief that the indictment is sufficie nt to support the conviction, that all pretria l motions wer e prope rly ruled on, and that Caddell rec eived a fa ir trial. He a lso states that, al tho ug h Cad de ll re c e ive d the ma ximum po ssi ble se nte nc e , it wa s w ith in t he ra ng e a va ila

ble and, due to the fact that Caddell had seven prior felony convictions, appe llate counse l could not say the sentenc e wa s illega l or disproportionate. Counsel' s statements are supported by the re cord. We h av e r e v ie w e d

th e r e c o r d

an d f in d th e e v id e n c e s u f

f ic ie n t t o s u

p p o rt th e c o n v ic ti o n . We ag ree with counsel there are no arguable points of er ror in this case
. 14

We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
.

Ba iley C. Moseley J ustice Date Submitted: J anuar y 31, 2008 Date D ecide d: Fe bruar y 7, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh